bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can." Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock." bmiller: "I’ll let grodrigues speak for himself..."
Nope. Your words. It seems like you would like to run away from them now. I wonder why that is.
bmiller: "... but I wonder why you’ve changed the premises…again."
Because that's the premise you have been trying to find a way to defend, without actually defending it. Because, it's indefensible. But that's been your choice throughout, so we will continue to point it out.
"Me: "you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant,"
Do you see how his responses were relevant now? If you want to dispute him please do so.
"Because that's the premise you have been trying to find a way to defend, without actually defending it. Because, it's indefensible. But that's been your choice throughout, so we will continue to point it out."
Please study the premises that the defenders of the First Way have been defending and then compare it to what Strawdusty just wrote. Tell me if you see a difference. Then get back with me.
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
Is this running away from defending what you wrote, which is also how we've been told we should both read the premises AND is the only conclusion of the First Way -- is that what you guys think is defending the First Way from refutation?
I've asked you 2 questions. Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant? Why did Strawdusty change the premises?
You can't seem to understand even these simple questions. If you can't answer these questions there's no use for me to go on.
You also can't seem to remember what you post comment to comment and day to day. You still cannot read back to me the First Way in a way that I recognize it after almost 3 months of patient explanation by numerous people here. I'm afraid you've failed the course. Try again next year.
bmiller: "Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant?"
They aren't relevant. An object in orbit, like a planet around a star, moves in orbit because it was moved by another object in a prior event, cascading back to the big bang. The force of gravity that keeps the planet in orbit is NOT what caused the planet to move, although it does affect the trajectory of its motion.
So, although gravity is interesting to talk about, gravity is NOT an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. It is an example of a force that affects the trajectory of an object in motion.
Regarding the movement of particles, these are affected by the position of other particles. So, while there are other forces involved that affect the movement of these particles, the motion of particles is a result of other moving particles with which they have interacted.
Why did Strawdusty change the premises?
He didn't.
I'm still waiting for your answer to the same question:
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
"They aren't relevant. An object in orbit, like a planet around a star, moves in orbit because it was moved by another object in a prior event, cascading back to the big bang."
Immediate failing grade. No more retries. You brought up the irrelevance of temporal beginnings. You also don't understand inertial reference frames.
Me:"Why did Strawdusty change the premises?" Cal:"He didn't."
Another immediate failing grade. You simply can't read. Don't bother me again unless you can answer the question correctly.
But if you are so eager to go on, why don't you answer this for question from days ago to Strawdusty:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
bmiller: "Immediate failing grade. No more retries. You brought up the irrelevance of temporal beginnings."
Nope. I pointed out that talk of motion without reference to time is nonsensical. The apologists here are the ones who are trying to say that the argument from motion has nothing to do with time. thatTry to keep that simple fact in your head.
bmiller: "You also don't understand inertial reference frames."
Um hm.
bmiller: "Me:"Why did Strawdusty change the premises?" Me:"He didn't." bmiller: "Another immediate failing grade. You simply can't read. Don't bother me again unless you can answer the question correctly."
It seems like you're becoming more and more unhinged. Maybe you should take some time away, like Legion, and come back and read this thread in a year.
bmiller: "But if you are so eager to go on, why don't you answer this for question from days ago to Strawdusty: "If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger."
That's not a question. It's a false assertion.
But sure, if I were to form it into a question, I'd say that Aquinas's physics (Aristotelian) are refuted by classical physics -- that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (instead of needing to be pushed). You don't understand that yet because, it seems, you don't understand basic high school (middle school?) physics.
I think there is something to what Stardusty says about the mind of the apologist, and delusions.
Are you going to get around to offering that example?
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
Here's my prediction: you'll just insult, and get things terribly wrong, and make some false assertions, and try and hide and cover up the fact that you can't do what you said you can do -- provide the example that would help you defend the silly First Way's notion that a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
And you'll never understand how basically every person in the modern world sees how this makes the First Way such a failed argument.
"It seems like you're becoming more and more unhinged. Maybe you should take some time away, like Legion, and come back and read this thread in a year."
No, not unhinged. But I am tired of diagraming sentences for you so you understand them. If you didn't see the change I won't help you.
"But sure, if I were to form it into a question, I'd say that Aquinas's physics (Aristotelian) are refuted by classical physics -- that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (instead of needing to be pushed). You don't understand that yet because, it seems, you don't understand basic high school (middle school?) physics."
Ah yes, you forgot again. What a surprise. I guess it's been more that a couple days since it was demonstrated to you that Newtonian physics agrees with the First Way. Sorry for your condition.
No more answers until you find out what changed in the premises. Do you have some sort of impediment to seeing it?
Logic has quite apparently served us well, yet no human being has published into general circulation a logical solution to the problem of the origin of existence.
All proposals end in illogic, yet an existence is absolutely certain. Clearly, human logic fails to account for at least one thing.
He has just told you that he believes that the universe is unintelligible. Since a foundational principle of western science is the universe is indeed intelligible, it would be illogical for that person to insist that western science proves his point, After all, he’s just told us the foundation of science is false.
But I guess, once someone concludes that things don’t make sense, then you are freed from the constraints of logic and rationality. This seems to be the case here.
I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move, that we are no longer discussing the First Way, so I risk derailing the thread by bringing it back up.
However, I think this link is worth reading. I've seen it before, and may have even posted it before, but heading toward 1000 posts between the threads, and I can't remember.
SP ”By all means, please do give an example of a motionless thing that was caused to move by some other motionless thing.”
" I’ll let grodrigues speak for himself, but I wonder why you’ve changed the premises…again."
bmiller said... " When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case " February 14, 2017 9:18 PM
bmiller is either mentally retarded in his or her entirety, selectively mentally retarded, or a liar.
You claim to have "explicit examples" yet you then claim I have "changed the premises" when I ask for them.
What are your "explicit examples" for "only something moving can move something else... not the case"?
Absent the specific examples you claim, I repeat, you are either mentally retarded or a liar.
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
"I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move, that we are no longer discussing the First Way, so I risk derailing the thread by bringing it back up."
To be fair, there *never* was a discussion of the First Way, but in the best of cases a discussion of the sillyness read *into* the First Way.
Legion: "I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move, that we are no longer discussing the First Way, so I risk derailing the thread by bringing it back up."
Um, the First Way concludes that a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move. The only way that it's premises can be non-contradictory is to take the position that things that cause things to move do not undergo any motion themselves.
If the argument isn't about a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, then we have (again) reached the point where apologists have to pretend that the First Way somehow shows that a deity must exist, without defending any of the responsibilities from that argument.
Which is all we ever get. This thread is an exorbitant example of just that.
"Um, the First Way concludes that a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move. The only way that it's premises can be non-contradictory is to take the position that things that cause things to move do not undergo any motion themselves."
Condensing the argument to nothing but physical location movement is a strawman, and I won't engage with it. If you want to argue the First Strawman argument, say so and we will quickly agree that it is a terrible argument and then move on.
Read the link I posted in my previous post last night - those of us here did not simply decide to change word definitions. But, fun thought experiment: even if Aquinas was completely wrong and only meant what you and SD are stating about physical movement (which those familiar with his and Aristotole's works would disagree with), then we would agree that they were wrong, and we would then present the argument as we are presenting it, and ask it to be refuted. Essentially, hanging up on the translation of Aquinas' argument is beside the point.
The premise of the First Way is that something that undergoes a change must be acted upon by something else in order for that change to occur. A stationary ball will not move itself, a rolling ball will not stop itself. Wood can't make itself hot. A person will not decide to go get a pizza slice if there is no pizza.
And the whole point of the first mover is that if every causal agent derives its power to change something else FROM something else (in other words, if every causal agent is an actualized potential, a potential state that was made reality), then there would be no change anywhere in the system. Like links in a chain holding a heavy weight in the air, each link's ability to hold a weight in the air is entirely dependent on the very first link. If it fails, the rest immediately lose their power to lift.
You can't even remember what we discussed yesterday, or detect subtle but important differences in the way things are stated. That's not even mentioning that you don't have a grasp on how logic works.
I've stayed on the thread this long only because I noticed that Chris started reading and within several exchanges had already understood the First Way argument. Some people can't or won't try. So, since I other things to do, and it looks like anyone who is interested in learning is no longer reading. I will disengage.
Except to look in occasionally to make sure I get the last word! HAHAHAHA!!!!!
When someone spews a casserole of nonsense, yes, I find it confusing.
bmiller: "You can't even remember what we discussed yesterday, or detect subtle but important differences in the way things are stated. That's not even mentioning that you don't have a grasp on how logic works."
The assessments of bmiller are not something I spend much time contemplating, fyi. You are what you show yourself to be.
bmiller: "I've stayed on the thread this long only because I noticed that Chris started reading and within several exchanges had already understood the First Way argument."
Ha.
bmiller: "Some people can't or won't try."
The argument is bad, and its defenders evince a certain, ahem, behavior. That much is evident.
bmiller: So, since I other things to do, and it looks like anyone who is interested in learning is no longer reading. I will disengage."
Yeah. You seem super busy all the time. So that makes sense.
Me: ”Um, the First Way concludes that a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move. The only way that it's premises can be non-contradictory is to take the position that things that cause things to move do not undergo any motion themselves." Legion: “Condensing the argument to nothing but physical location movement is a strawman, and I won't engage with it. If you want to argue the First Strawman argument, say so and we will quickly agree that it is a terrible argument and then move on. “
What? If the particular part of an argument isn’t true, why would expanding it make it somehow compelling?
It’s not a strawman to point out that the premise of an argument isn’t sound. It’s called critical thinking.
You appear to be saying that while the argument isn’t sound when it’s examined using specific terminology, a fuzzier version of it does work. This is what people say when they want to deceive themselves.
Me: “Read the link I posted in my previous post last night - those of us here did not simply decide to change word definitions. But, fun thought experiment: even if Aquinas was completely wrong and only meant what you and SD are stating about physical movement (which those familiar with his and Aristotole's works would disagree with), then we would agree that they were wrong, and we would then present the argument as we are presenting it, and ask it to be refuted. Essentially, hanging up on the translation of Aquinas' argument is beside the point.”
Aquinas seemed to be wanting to take a specific example, motion, in order to talk about a broader concept, change. But if the simple version of his argument fails (his understanding of motion is wrong), then his expanded version based on the same misunderstanding can certainly fare no better.
Legion: “The premise of the First Way is that something that undergoes a change must be acted upon by something else in order for that change to occur.“
Sure. And a modern understanding of physics includes that in order to bestow motion on something a thing itself needs to be in motion? Do you disagree? If not, then you agree that the First Way is unsound. If you agree, you should do what bmiller and grod have tried so hard to run away from and hand wave and change the subject over, etc. — provide an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move.
Do you see the dilemma that the First Way presents to its proponents?
Have you ever wondered why the educated world has moved on to other explanations for how reality operates?
Legion: “And the whole point of the first mover is that if every causal agent derives its power to change something else FROM something else (in other words, if every causal agent is an actualized potential, a potential state that was made reality), then there would be no change anywhere in the system. Like links in a chain holding a heavy weight in the air, each link's ability to hold a weight in the air is entirely dependent on the very first link. If it fails, the rest immediately lose their power to lift.”
Which is not true of objects in motion. Which we’ve known since the time of Newton. So, why would you find this argument compelling if you know it’s not true for the simple example on which it tries to expand?
Btw, regarding your link, I imagine you want to say that the idea of the bear in the mirror is what the First Way is all about — that existence is like a set of reflections of a bear, that disappears when the bear goes away. Thus, existence requires a bear (god, whatever).
But no. The bear exists for a set of reasons that cascade back to the big bang. And the bear moves into the mirrors in order to cast its reflections — the bear cannot begin the reflections without moving into the mirrors, or the mirrors moving to reflect the bear. Either way, something moves to start the reflection.
So, it’s all still kind of a simple, quaint, and stilly argument. After all this. Imagine my surprise.
" Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?"
There are no such comments to support your claim. You are a liar.
Liars like you will spend many words claiming the answer is someplace else instead of just saying a few words here and now in support of the dishonest claim.
" The premise of the First Way is that something that undergoes a change must be acted upon by something else in order for that change to occur." No, that is not "the" premise. You are wrong about that. It is "a" premise.
" Wood can't make itself hot." Right, a hot thing is required to make wood hot, obviously. Ice does not make wood hot. A merely existent thing does not make wood hot. Aquinas clearly tells you these things, but you just don't understand simple language.
"Aquinas clearly tells you these things, but you just don't understand simple language."
Haha, says one of the two people who has no idea what he's talking about.
I'll check back periodically maybe, and will hop back in if you and Cal ever decide to comment on the First Way as understood by contemporary knowledgeable people.
" I'll check back periodically maybe, and will hop back in if you and Cal ever decide to comment on the First Way as understood by contemporary knowledgeable people."
Your knowledge is so limited that you do not know the difference between the words "the" and "a".
Nor can you comprehend the simple relationship that a hot thing makes wood hot.
Knowledgeable? Your reading capacity in this area does not even extend into adulthood.
Me: " Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?"
”There are no such comments to support your claim. You are a liar.”
Because you are too lazy or incompetent to look back through comments does not make me a liar. But you calling me a liar says a lot about your character.
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
Me: " Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?"
SP ”There are no such comments to support your claim. You are a liar.”
" Because you are too lazy or incompetent to look back through comments does not make me a liar." You are a liar because it would be very easy for you to cite an example like a locomotive, or a chain, or whatever your idiotic idea is.
But liars like you will talk and talk and talk about how the answer is someplace else. That is a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from your fundamental lie with a further lie that the answer exists elsewhere.
" But you calling me a liar says a lot about your character." Indeed, it shows that I am honest and observant and knowledgeable on this subject.
You are a liar. You claim to have examples where a moving thing causing motion is not the case. That is a lie. You have never provided any such examples.
Me: "Sure. And a modern understanding of physics includes that in order to bestow motion on something a thing itself needs to be in motion? Do you disagree? If not, then you agree that the First Way is unsound. If you agree, you should do what bmiller and grod have tried so hard to run away from and hand wave and change the subject over, etc. — provide an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move." Legion: "I'll check back periodically maybe, and will hop back in if you and Cal ever decide to comment on the First Way as understood by contemporary knowledgeable people."
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
Apparently, defenders of the First Way do not know this. Which doesn't just mean that they are apparently fooled by an appeal to authority, but that they don't understand what an argument is, or how to think critically.
Skeptics: Tell me why you think the First Way shows that a deity must exist? Apologists: You don't understand the argument. Skeptics: In which way. Apologists: In the way we're too busy to cogently explain. Skeptics: Why can't you cogently explain it? Apologists: Because we already have. Skeptics: What?
And that's what these conversations have been all along. One. Big. What.
SP "Aquinas clearly tells you these things, but you just don't understand simple language."
" Haha, says one of the two people who has no idea what he's talking about."
Let's ask Aquinas about "actuality", shall we?
*a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act*
*motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.*
*nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality*
*that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it."
Somehow, all the theists here have concluded from these statements that "actuality" means "existence". That is a stunningly stupid thing to conclude. Only a person suffering from a sort of mental retardation could even say something that asinine.
A thing moves because it exists? How stupid. What an idiotic and pointless statement that becomes.
Motion is reduction from potentiality to existence? Even more stupid. Word salad. Gibberish of the mentally deranged.
Clearly, Aquinas is referring to a state of actual motion, not a mere state of existence.
Only a thing in actuality causes something else to move to actuality. Aquinas clarifies this even further by example, actually hot causes actually hot. Heat is literally motion. You do know that, right?
Every theist on this site who has commented on the meaning of "actuality" is at best selectively mentally retarded. In the case of bmiller he or she is also a blatant liar.
Is the objection that the changeless changer ought to be an empirically observable entity?"
That is another subject, and a very interesting one.
But no, the objection at the moment is that bmiller claimed to have in his possession an example of a thing being caused to move by a thing that was not itself in motion. For most people that would simply be a misunderstanding. Given the number of times bmiller has repeated this and dodged providing this supposed example bmiller is clearly a liar.
A further objection is the absurd definition of "actuality" as a mere "existence". Please see my comments of February 17, 2017 9:31 AM for a very brief explanation as to the absurdity of that definition.
The simple truth is that no human being has solved the problem of the origin of existence and published that solution into general circulation. Not you, not me, not Aquinas, not Craig, not Hawking, not Krauss, and not any of the folks here.
All attempts at a solution lead to logical absurdities, yet an existence is absolutely certain. Clearly, the fault is in ourselves.
Speaking as an AT novice, I am not clear as to why that is relevant. As I understand it, one of the premises is that whatever changes must be changed by something else.
”You are a liar. You claim to have examples where a moving thing causing motion is not the case. That is a lie. You have never provided any such examples.
You are a liar.”
Well, I’m not surprised that you think this way given that you’ve abandoned rational thought. For a rational person to reach the conclusion that another person is lying one would have to know: 1) The truth of the matter 2) Proof that the accused knew the truth of the matter 3) Proof that the accused denied the truth of the matter while knowing the truth of the matter.
First of all I know the truth of the matter and am speaking the truth. You apparently are not capable of reading past comments to find out the truth of the matter. I want you to learn how to do that.
I consider it superior to teach a man to fish rather than to give him a fish. I’ve seen some people, that when given a fish, insist it’s a cat and then stick it in their ear. Sort of like your bizarre misreading of the First Way.
But since you apparently feel no obligation to respond to this: In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
" Speaking as an AT novice, I am not clear as to why that is relevant. As I understand it, one of the premises is that whatever changes must be changed by something else." Yes, that is one of the premises. LL called it "the" premise. In this case the self described novice understands the obvious truth, while the alleged experienced apologist has his head in the sand.
You have the clarity of the young, the emperor has no clothes.
I suggest you appreciate the intelligence and efforts of the ancients but not their arguments. Aristotle and Aquinas were wrong. If you want to learn truth then be willing to understand how they were wrong and build upon all knowledge and understanding accumulated in the many centuries since ancient times.
I suggest you abandon the language of the ancients. Instead focus on modern scientific study of the nature of causality.
John S. Bell would be one good place for you to start.
"Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
Let me know if you have any questions in this area. "The Last Superstition" and "Aquinas" by Edward Feser are good books, but just by searching his blog, you can help your understanding tremendously.
Ignore the atheist bloviating. It's easy to see they are frightened.
" First of all I know the truth of the matter and am speaking the truth. You apparently are not capable of reading past comments to find out the truth of the matter. "
No such comments exist. I have already read them all. None include any examples of a motionless thing causing motion. If you dispute this then simply paste the alleged text here, until such time...
" Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on." You won't get much out of AT beyond a lesson in how mistaken highly intelligent people can be when they lack the benefit of scientific understanding.
In short, the very notion of cause and effect is highly dubious. We perceive causes and effects at our macro level but those are approximations and illusions. In truth the underlying reality is a seething cauldron of everything being in motion and being mutual causes and effects of each other in a vastly complicated temporal process.
If you really want to learn about causality here is the sort of thing to study John S. Bell’s concept of local causality http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
”No such comments exist. I have already read them all. None include any examples of a motionless thing causing motion. If you dispute this then simply paste the alleged text here, until such time...
You are a liar.”
I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence: In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
Chris: "Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
It's interesting from a historical standpoint. It's not interesting from a "make-sense-of-the-world" standpoint. And that's because the language is muddled, and in some cases it's just flat out wrong. It's wrong about fundamental physics. Not only does AT physics know nothing of the atomic and subatomic world, it is wrong about classical physics as well -- an object in motion does not need a force to remain in motion.
The reason AT metaphysics isn't taught outside of historical explanation is because it's wrong about how reality operates. Apologists like to pretend that this is not the case, but the only ones they can convince are other apologists, and the aggressively gullible.
Chris: "Speaking as an AT novice, I am not clear as to why that is relevant. As I understand it, one of the premises is that whatever changes must be changed by something else."
Indeed you are correct. As we have been pointing out for a thousand posts now, the objections raised thus far are firing all over the place and have yet to even strike the wall that the target is mounted on.
"Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
This is also correct. An understanding of the beliefs of Aristotle and Aquinas is crucial in understanding the First Way as intended, since as we have pointed out, the argument is one part of a much larger body of work, and one cannot base their entire understanding of AT philosophy on just the First Way, let alone the First Strawman. Those who do...well, First Strawman.
As bmiller said above, Feser is an excellent resource.
SP ”No such comments exist. I have already read them all. None include any examples of a motionless thing causing motion. If you dispute this then simply paste the alleged text here, until such time...
You are a liar.”
" I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:"
Liar, no such link exists. Lots of links exist to long disjointed ramblings by kooks and charlatans.
No links exist to a simple example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing.
Legion: "As we have been pointing out for a thousand posts now, the objections raised thus far are firing all over the place and have yet to even strike the wall that the target is mounted on."
Nope. Our comments have been relevant throughout. The apologists here are just incapable of understanding them, or are deluded, or are dishonest. Most likely the mind of the apologist can't grasp the idea that a god might not exist, and their thinking on this topic is stunted from this difficulty. Sic.
Just look at Legion's ignoring my question to him (above): Me: "...a modern understanding of physics includes that in order to bestow motion on something a thing itself needs to be in motion? Do you disagree? If not, then you agree that the First Way is unsound. If you agree, you should do what bmiller and grod have tried so hard to run away from and hand wave and change the subject over, etc. — provide an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move."
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
Here's what I think: I think that when an apologist sees that a line of reasoning (an argument) threatens his belief in a god, he begins to act irrationally. Also, and this seems to be unavoidable, he begins to act quite shabbily -- impugning, incriminating, acting hypocritically, etc. I have yet to come across an exception to this. As further evidence, I point to this post, and the contribution of its apologist commenters.
I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument. The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism.
" I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument." Motion is physics. Heat is physics. Sorry Chris, you can't have it both ways.
The First Way is an argument for god from physics, the physics of motion and heat (which is a form of motion)
" The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism." If you want to say there is some superstuff out that that can violate logic and physics that is not an argument, rather, pure speculation.
You won't get any closer to truth by holding on to bad arguments and pre-scientific language. There is nothing of value in AT in discovering how reality operates. The only value of AT is in discovering how the human mind can be deceived, or perhaps, deceive itself.
Bmiller and I have recommended Feser previously. Here he addresses the alleged conflict between Newton and Aquinas. I found it very useful, you might as well.
Me:" I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:"
Strawdusty”Liar, no such link exists. Lots of links exist to long disjointed ramblings by kooks and charlatans.
No links exist to a simple example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing.
You are a liar to suggest otherwise.”
Well, this is just one more thing that you have provided no evidence for. You call me a liar, so you must have some proof that you know what I think. Where is that proof?
But:In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
You’ve had adequate time now to provide your evidence, so here we are finally. Your silence is your answer. You’ve agreed that science and logic conforms to the First Way.
"I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument. The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism.
While it is true that the critics are materialists, there is no conflict between the metaphysics of the First Way and any the philosophical underpinnings of any version of modern physics.
" Plainly and simply stated, which premise(s) of the First Way are false and why?" Perhaps most egregious is the very last line. Ordinarily one does not place a premise at the very end. The conclusion "therefor god exists" is implied in the premise "and this everyone understands to be God."
Perhaps if Aquinas had been addressing a room full of fellow Christians that premise would have been true. As an argument in the 21st century that premise is false, since I am part of "everyone" and I do not understand "this...to be god".
The argument is so badly written that the intent of the the argument, to argue for the existence of god based on the physics of motion, is not even explicitly stated as such at the end, but the wording of his final premise clearly indicates his intent to also state the conclusion "therefore god exists".
Earlier in the argument Aquinas uses the language of "potential" and "actual". These are hopelessly archaic and pre-scientific notions. If you wish to become an expert in these notions you might also wish to become an expert in alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and phlogiston. If you want to be exposed to scientific terminology in serious modern discussions of causality I suggest you start here: http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
You will note that AT terminology is not employed in any serious modern discussion of causality.
Elsewhere Aquinas asserts: But (causes of motion being themselves in motion) cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover. Which is blatant begging the question as well as an ad hoc assertion and merely stating the problem that nobody has a solution to. So, this part of the argument is also simply terrible.
Focus on the word "because". Aquinas states a conclusion in a premise!!! You can't get much worse than that in an argument.
Also, conservation tells us that stuff has indeed existed for infinity, yet that is irrational to the human brain, as is a first mover, or any other attempt to solve this ancient riddle of the origin of existence.
Aquinas does noting, certainly, to solve this problem and only present a truly terrible "argument" that fails immediately. A special sort of blindness is required to see any merit whatsoever in the twisted and pathetic "argument" that is the First Way.
You really think that you are a mind reader then. How sad.
I am sorry that my request to back up your bloviating with actual evidence has caused you to become unhinged. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself and I feel sorry for you.
You said that previous posts contain examples of a thing that causes motion that is not itself moving.
That is a lie.
You are a liar.
I will stop when you do one of two things. 1. Produce those supposed previous posts. 2. Develop the integrity to admit you were wrong and lacked the personal fortitude to admit it.
As I said, I am not sure if the argument succeeds. But, respectfully, the objections that you cite don't seem to have much bite. For example, I don't think that the argument is about the "physics of motion". Aquinas, I think, is simply providing an empirical example of change that wouldn't be controversial. I interpret him as saying "Things change." Vis a via AT terminology, like act and potency, again there is nothing there that strikes me as obscure. Things are this and they have the potential to be that. That is, things change. You then go on to say that "stuff has existed for infinity", but then go to say that that is irrational. Do me a favor, just go easy on the attack mode- I am just trying to understand.
" As I said, I am not sure if the argument succeeds. But, respectfully, the objections that you cite don't seem to have much bite. For example, I don't think that the argument is about the "physics of motion"." Motion is a subject of physics. Observations of how things move and what causes motion are arguments from physics. Motion is inseparable from physics.
The First Way is an argument for god from motion. The First Way is necessarily a physics argument because it uses as it premises the physics of motion. Here are some premises of the physics of motion that Aquinas uses: Something moves. A thing that moves is moved by another thing. Nothing moves itself. Only a moving thing causes motion.
" Aquinas, I think, is simply providing an empirical example of change that wouldn't be controversial." Indeed. The above premises are self evident at our ordinary level of observation. Only a special sort of stubborn fool would deny any of them as ordinary observational facts, so Aquinas very reasonably started with those uncontroversial observational facts of the physics of motion.
" I interpret him as saying "Things change." " Right, but that is a rather pedestrian observation by itself. One does not reasonable argue for god from such a simple statement alone.
"Vis a via AT terminology, like act and potency, again there is nothing there that strikes me as obscure. Things are this and they have the potential to be that. That is, things change." Ok, you can make those very generalized statements if you wish, but they do no constitute a valuable argument.
" You then go on to say that "stuff has existed for infinity", but then go to say that that is irrational." Close, but not precisely what I said. Conservation tells us stuff has existed for infinity. Clearly, the fault is in ourselves.
There is a clear conflict between what we observe and what we can conceive of rationally. All human beings who have ever lived, myself included, have failed to solve this problem and publish the solution into general circulation. Given how many have tried, it seems reasonable to assert that the human brain has thus far proved itself inadequate to the task of rationalizing reality.
" Do me a favor, just go easy on the attack mode- I am just trying to understand." You have not lied to me that I am able to detect. Typically people come to discussion forum to discuss things. But some people, when confronted with a clear error on their part will lie. That happened with bmiller. He just could not cope with being called out on a falsehood he stated so he doubled down, tripled down, attempted diversion, attempted to say the answer was someplace else, and used all the techniques of a liar. Why that individual would degrade himself or herself in that way is anybody's guess.
I provided a link above I think might be helpful, but of course, there are many ways to learn about causality. The First Way is not one of them, except for its historical value and the insight it provides us how the ancients attempted to make sense of the world lacking the benefits of modern science, and what that implies for the thinking of those in modern times who either reject or are not educated in science.
bmiller seems to think that because no one can know what another person thinks, no one can ever be called a liar.
But that is not the standard for lying.
The standard for lying is: to knowingly say something that isn't true.
bmiller continues to maintain that he can cite an example (from the comments here) where a motionless thing moves something else, but he refuses to do so.
bmiller knows that he cannot cite what he claimed he could, and instead of admitting this, he tries do divert from this fact. bmiller has said something that isn't true, and he knows that he cannot cite the example that he claimed he could. This is the standard for lying.
bmiller is, thus, a liar.
What kind of argument is best supported by liars?
Are those usually good arguments, or are they usually bad arguments?
Chris: "Plainly and simply stated, which premise(s) of the First Way are false and why?"
I'd start with the one that the apologists are arguing for now -- that a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
That's how the apologists here now say the premise should be understood, and it is false.
grod had said earlier that the gravitational pull of a star moves a planet, but as i pointed out, gravity is a force that affects the path of the planet, but is not the force that set the planet in motion. grod had said earlier that the movement of an electron is affected by the position of other particles, but this is irrelevant -- particles move because the position of other particles causes them to move. So, neither example shows how a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
The reason the apologists here have chosen to defend a false premise is because it is easier to obfuscate over this problem than the more obvious one a different (and frankly, better) reading of Aquinas's argument makes -- that only a thing in motion can cause another thing to move. But choosing this interpretation of the premise makes the argument more awkward to defend, because it is so easy to see how this premise contradicts the argument's conclusion.
And that is why we are treated to the bickering and squabbling (and in bmiller's case, transparent lying) over this variation of the argument's defense.
" grod had said earlier that the gravitational pull of a star moves a planet," Is that what these theists are on about? The star also moves. The star is not motionless. The motion of the star is in fact how astronomers detect extrasolar planets. Obviously, a star/planet system is not an example of a motionless thing causing motion in something else.
" grod had said earlier that the movement of an electron is affected by the position of other particles," Particles affect each other and they are all moving and they are all mutually causes and effects of the motions of each other in a complex temporal system of motion and forces. (I assume the discussion was about some sort of N body system of various sorts of particles).
Aren't you theists out there typically Christians? Every heard of a thing called bearing false witness? Wouldn't it be better to deal with physical reality in an honest discussion as opposed to just making up demonstrably false nonsense?
Stardusty: "Aren't you theists out there typically Christians? Every heard of a thing called bearing false witness? Wouldn't it be better to deal with physical reality in an honest discussion as opposed to just making up demonstrably false nonsense?"
In my experience I've found that apologists, and the virtues nominally associated with being Christian, to be almost entirely exclusive of one another.
I will stop when you do one of two things. 1. Produce those supposed previous posts. 2. Develop the integrity to admit you were wrong and lacked the personal fortitude to admit it.
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence: In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
I’ve offered to show you the comment after you produced the evidence I asked for. None of your responses do so much as acknowledge the request. Now follow your own conditions 1. Produce the evidence I asked for 2. Or admit that you are wrong and there is none. (which is actually the case)
It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you consider name calling a rational alternative to actually thinking. It rather proves my point that atheists are not rational.
As soon as you provide 1 or 2 we can proceed. But each time I check back I see you have absolutely no intention of even acknowledging the responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. So I’ll be checking back less frequently.
You can probably tell by now that the atheists cannot even accurately read back the premises of the First Way. It's quite remarkable. I can't tell if it's intentional, but it's at least some sort of cognitive dissonance.
"grod had said earlier that the gravitational pull of a star moves a planet, but as i pointed out, gravity is a force that affects the path of the planet, but is not the force that set the planet in motion. grod had said earlier that the movement of an electron is affected by the position of other particles, but this is irrelevant -- particles move because the position of other particles causes them to move."
What Mr. Metzger said was and I quote:
"this argument still has the other problems I've pointed out -- that it doesn't relate to what we observe happening with real objects here in reality, where something doesn't magically move something else without itself having momentum (which means it is moving)."
This is what I responded to. The claim here is that: "something doesn't magically move something else without itself having momentum (which means it is moving)". Let us take my second example. An electron moving uniformly. In its proper inertial rest frame, it has 0 momentum (= it is at rest). Because once again, and unknown to the pair of buffoons that think they know physics, momentum is not an invariant quantity but depends on the reference frame, and consequently, being at rest or in (uniform) motion is also not an absolute notion and depends on the reference frame. But the electron does move other particles, because moving other particles is just a matter of generating the proper fields (gravitational field for mass, electromagnetic field for charge, etc.) which of course the electron does. It could be the force that sets something else in motion (it suffices that said motionless particle is acted by the field generated by the electron -- although strictly speaking, in the classical case both the electromagnetic and gravitational field have infinite range) or it could simply change its motion. It still counts as change; the distinction of the two cases is completely spurious as far as physics go. But then all this is completely irrelevant to the First Way as well. But then, here we have a counter-example to what Mr. Metzger asserted, something that every first-year physics student knows. Period, end of story.
Now the basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit can spin the story any way they think fit, and ask for a motionless thing that sets in motion another motionless thing, presumably not via gravity but by some other means (maybe magical woo?), for some reason completely irrelevant to the First Way and that only they in the vacuum of their skulls know, or whatever other crap they pull out of their asses, accuse everyone else of lying, of "patent ignorance", etc. This comment here is just to disabuse any possible lurker insane enough and with nothing better to do than reading their inane drivel. The two idiots are beyond any possible rational discourse and belong to an asylum for the mentally retarded.
I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-) After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't.
bmiller: “I’ve offered to show you the comment after you produced the evidence I asked for. None of your responses do so much as acknowledge the request. Now follow your own conditions / 1. Produce the evidence I asked for / 2. Or admit that you are wrong and there is none. (which is actually the case)”
Nope. Stardusty’s conditions were to cite an example for what you already claimed had occurred.
Your condition is to satisfy some arbitrary requirement that you now demand, and I have no doubt that no matter what is provided you will say it is somehow insufficient to satisfy your demands and use that as your excuse to pretend that you have not been caught in a lie.
You are a bad liar.
Discussion isn’t possible when one side lies, and then refuses to remedy the lie.
bmiiler: “It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you consider name calling a rational alternative to actually thinking. It rather proves my point that atheists are not rational.”
Skeptics like Stardusty and I are not rational and are name-calling here? Yeah, that’s what’s going on. Look at grod here, just in one comment:
grod: “…pair of buffoons ….basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit…in the vacuum of their skulls know, or whatever other crap they pull out of their asses… two idiots….belong to an asylum for the mentally retarded.”
Yeah, irrationality and name calling are the what the skeptics here have brought, not the apologists. At least you avoided projecting the lying onto us as as well.
bmiller: “As soon as you provide 1 or 2 we can proceed. But each time I check back I see you have absolutely no intention of even acknowledging the responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. So I’ll be checking back less frequently.”
Stardusty hasn’t lied, and refused to provide an example that he says would disprove his lie.
That’s all on you.
Do you think it makes the First Way look like a valid argument, that rather than recognize its problems, its defenders are reduced to a state where all they seem to be able to do is insult and lie?
" An electron moving uniformly. In its proper inertial rest frame, it has 0 momentum (= it is at rest). " A moving electron is at rest. Brilliant.
"being at rest or in (uniform) motion is also not an absolute notion and depends on the reference frame. " Congratulations, you have defined 1 electron in the universe to be perpetually at rest no matter what forces are applied to it because you have arbitrarily defined it to be the center of its own reference frame. How idiotic.
"But the electron does move other particles, because moving other particles is just a matter of generating the proper fields (gravitational field for mass, electromagnetic field for charge, etc.) which of course the electron does." No, there is a great deal more to solving an N body problem than that.
" But then all this is completely irrelevant to the First Way as well. " Indeed, because Aquinas was familiar with ordinary objects, like a rock, or staff, or a cart. Clearly, only an apparently moving thing causes an apparently stationary thing to move. Aquinas was smart enough to put these simple observational facts, as we perceive them in common objects, into simple words that the theists here have managed to me mightily confused by.
"But then, here we have a counter-example to what Mr. Metzger asserted, something that every first-year physics student knows. Period, end of story." How absurd. You arbitrarily select a set of conditions in an N body problem to start at some arbitrary time and select some particular unique and arbitrary frame of reference and call your example shown. How absurd.
How did your "motionless" electron arrive at its "stationary" position? Has it been there for all time. just sitting in that one place perfectly still? Do you suppose that your "motionless" electron remains motionless while exerting forces on other particles, like some immovable celestial anchor?
In truth, your first year physics student understands that there are no particles at rest relative to other particles. All particles are in motion. They are all influencing each other continuously due to the mutual influence of their fields and are the continuous causes and effects of each other in a mutual temporal process of vast complexity.
" Now the basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit can spin the story any way they think fit, " Ok, I hereby spin your silly simplistic nonsense into the dustbin where it belongs.
"and ask for a motionless thing that sets in motion another motionless thing, presumably not via gravity but by some other means (maybe magical woo?)," The theists are the ones asserting the magic woo! I am glad you finally realize that is what this silly notion of some thing motionless moving something else is.
" accuse everyone else of lying," I accuse bmiller of lying, not merely of being wrong, because he refuses to produce that which he claims, and he employs the diversionary tactics of a liar, expending many words dodging when just a few would be required to answer truthfully.
" I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-) After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't." Indeed, I have been reading along, and no such post exits, liar.
But by all means, prove me wrong, a simple link to the blog post in question will do.
" I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-)"
No, G is not a liar, just badly confused and cursing like a grumpy old man spewing nonsense.
G at least had the integrity to simply lay his case out in plain language, He didn't try to present me with a dozen dodges. G is not a liar here, just badly mistaken.
grod: "Now the basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit can spin the story any way they think fit, and ask for a motionless thing that sets in motion another motionless thing, presumably not via gravity but by some other means (maybe magical woo?)..."
This is the point where bmiller should realize that not even grod's rantings are considered by grod to provide the example for a motionless things causing another motionless thing to move.
I predict that bmiller will be super busy now. Very little time to come back here, and figure out some way to show he's not a liar. Or try to salvage the notion that he understands basic high school (middle school?) physics.
Let this be a lesson, kids. Lying just leads to trouble.
Your misquote: bmiller said... Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do "
Your ironic challenge: Then stop flapping your lying jaw and post it, liar.
What I actually posted: Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence: In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
So it doesn’t really help your credibility to accuse others of lying in the same comment where you misquote them. So either you can’t read or you are ...what?
But why don’t you post the comment yourself? Can you not navigate the comment section? Is this really too subtle for you? ”I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me whenI referenced to your post.:-) After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't.”
But again: In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
I don't truly care about the "who's a liar" conversation per se, but it is highly dishonest of you to quote him as saying
"I’d rather just post the link which I will do"
When what he said was
"I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence"
That's extremely dishonest of you, to the point that you have zero credibility of accusing anyone of lying. If you persist in doing so, congratulations you're a liar.
It doesn't matter who goes first, but liars should not accuse others of lying.
"Congratulations, you have defined 1 electron in the universe to be perpetually at rest no matter what forces are applied to it because you have arbitrarily defined it to be the center of its own reference frame. How idiotic."
So let us consult the wikipedia, that universal fount of wisdom. On Rest Frame it has as first sentence:
"In special relativity the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest."
By the way, there is nothing special about SR here. The notion makes sense in Newtonian physics or GR or whatever. As I said, "momentum is not an invariant quantity but depends on the reference frame, and consequently, being at rest or in (uniform) motion is also not an absolute notion and depends on the reference frame". On the entry Frame of Reference it uses the following example:
"In contrast to the inertial frame, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which fictitious forces must be invoked to explain observations. An example is an observational frame of reference centered at a point on the Earth's surface. This frame of reference orbits around the center of the Earth, which introduces the fictitious forces known as the Coriolis force, centrifugal force, and gravitational force. (All of these forces including gravity disappear in a truly inertial reference frame, which is one of free-fall.)"
As the reader can readily observe, I set my electron at uniform motion -- and this is the reason, to have an inertial frame and do not have to muck up with "fictitious forces" to explain the observations. I should add that the quoted observation of Stardusty is also the beginning of the General Relativity. There is an extremely famous thought experiment that virtually all books on GR use to show the local equivalence of a gravitational field and acceleration, which once again, employs a rest frame. Now, predictably Stardusty being an ignorant moron with the IQ of a fence post, does not know anything about this.
At any rate, the physics lesson is over and I do not have the wish or patience to go over the other abysmally ignorant crap that he clogged the comment box with. I am sure Dumb and Dumber will want to have the last last word and I happily give them (I should have done this long long ago; apologies to everyone, Stardusty and Mr. Metzger included, for contributing to what is in essence a pointless discussion).
Legion: "It doesn't matter who goes first, but liars should not accuse others of lying."
Nice try at buying the lies of a liar. But by doing so you just make yourself seem like a dupe, or easy mark.
PRIOR to what bmiller quoted in his vapid portrayal, he claimed:
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, AND YOU GIVE HIM EXPLICIT EXAMPLES WHERE THIS IS NOT THE CASE but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
That is the lie. There had been no specific examples offered showing how a motionless thing causes some other motionless thing to move. I suspect bmiller saw what he thought was some prior physic-y talk from grod and didn't understand it and couldn't recognize why it wasn't relevant but his hopes got ahead of his apprehension and he made a false claim. Which his repeated efforts since have shown to be a lie.
Everything else that has followed has been the most obvious delaying and attempts to divert from bmiller that only a genuine dupe could buy it. Really, do you think that vouching for a transparent liar makes you look intelligent?
But then again, the comments of apologists still have the capacity to surprise me.
------
bmiller's tactic above is common among apologists (and propagandists as well, with which they have much in common). By repeating a lie, they establish a foothold for their falsehoods. When challenged, rather than establish their lie as a fact, they simply repeat it. Think Joe McCarthy. Think Donald Trump. This is the tactic they often use.
Sadly, this tactic can be effective -- it's been studied in psychology (it's related to framing).
But educated people should be able to recognize it, as well as follow an argument.
But I do agree with you that too few people can. Sic.
Grod: "By the way, there is nothing special about SR here....At any rate, the physics lesson is over and I do not have the wish or patience to go over the other abysmally ignorant crap that he clogged the comment box with."
And the point is....?
The best I can figure is that you are trying to say that the study of physics itself is an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? But that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? The study of physics is the attempt to describe and explain real things as they behave in space and time. The study of physics does not produce the magical example of a real motionless thing causing another real motionless thing to move; it produces the study of physics.
Because this is all in reference to the First Way, and our observation that motionless things don't cause other motionless things to move. You understand that much, right?
Legion: "I don't truly care about the "who's a liar" conversation per se, but it is highly dishonest of you to quote him as saying / "I’d rather just post the link which I will do" / When what he said was / "I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence" / That's extremely dishonest of you, to the point that you have zero credibility of accusing anyone of lying. If you persist in doing so, congratulations you're a liar. "
Stardusty posted the full sentence multiple times prior. This is an ongoing conversation, with the reference comments stacked in close proximity.
If you're so confident that bmiller's lies and Stardusty's characterizations are somehow equivalent, why don't you ask bmiller to provide the example he's been claiming was cited earlier? Wouldn't that be the ultimate zinger for you and bmiller? I wonder why you would refrain from doing so. Do you realize that any rational person can easily see that the failure for bmiller to, at long last (the suspense is killing me! It's going to be HUGE!!!!! now after all this, trust me!) provide his gotcha example is that he's actually just been caught in a lie and he can't figure out a way out?
What would it expose about your critical thinking skills if bmiller persists in his lies, and you go on to find them credible?
Do you think it would make you seem like a rational person and critical thinker, or do you think it would make you seem irrational, and easily duped?
Your now objectively intentional misquote of me: Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do "
My actual quote: Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:”
I think this settles the character issue wrt Strawdusty.
”Ok, howzabout you stop effing around and just post it then?
Well the first reason is because you have not provided the evidence I asked for nor have you acknowledged that you cannot.
The second reason is because throughout all these comments wrt the First Way, I have patiently reposted comments, added links to comments, rephrased things multiple times and in excruciatingly fine detail only to have the atheists here either ignore the posts or forget them. I’ve decided I’m done with that. If you cannot find the comment of mine that you criticized, read it and understand what I was talking about and who I was addressing and for what reason, it seems you either do not know how to navigate, or have low reading comprehension skill.
The third reason, is I have provided not-so-subtle clues to what I was referring to in order to assess your capability. Most recently here: ”Is this really too subtle for you? ”I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-) After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't.” I have to conclude that you have very low problem solving capability if you cannot put 2 and 2 together. So there’s not really much point discussing things that are beyond your opponent’s capability.
In any case, grodrigues has demonstrated (unsurprisingly) that you don’t understand physics. So it’s pretty obvious why you cannot provide the evidence you were asked to provide.
Since you’re unresponsive, I will disengage with you also. Except of course to make sure I have the last word. :-)
While the subject of irrationality, and in particular the role morality plays in establishing a rational framework (think: consistency, detachment, escaping narcissism to employ intersubjectivity, and biases, etc.) is always interesting, I'm still waiting to see if there's disagreement about these two questions:
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
bmiller: "I think this settles the character issue wrt Strawdusty."
No. You made a false claim, and then lied about it.
Stardusty quoted you entirely, and after some time quoted you partially. He never misquoted you (which would have meant changing what you wrote, and attributing that to you).
You are just a liar.
bmiller; "Well the first reason is because you have not provided the evidence I asked for nor have you acknowledged that you cannot."
Apathetic attempt to invent an arbitrary excuse to not be caught doubling down in a lie. You fool no one.
bmiller: "If you cannot find the comment of mine that you criticized, read it and understand what I was talking about and who I was addressing and for what reason, it seems you either do not know how to navigate, or have low reading comprehension skill."
You can't find the comment you are referring to because it doesn't exist. You are a liar.
bmiller: "In any case, grodrigues has demonstrated (unsurprisingly) that you don’t understand physics."
This from someone who has already demonstrated that he doesn't know enough to pass high school (middle school?) physics.
If I were an apologist, I would do everything I could to disassociate myself from someone as tawdry and stupid as you make yourself appear to be. You make the enterprise of apologetics the transparent hucksterism that better apologists disguise with sophistry.
I can't help but draw the parallel between apologetics in general and bmiller's antics here.
Apologetics survives as an enterprise by implying that the rational reasons for believing are out there, but never gets around to presenting them in careful detail; supposedly, the real reasons, the good reasons, are always somewhere else, cited in a way sufficiently vague as to avoid real scrutiny. If scrutiny is allowed, and the reasoning shown to be fallacious, apologetics responds by moving the goalpost to another new vague set of "real" reasons. And the whack-a-mole game is carried on ad infinitum.
On the same level, bmiller's silly lie (that a prior example was given for a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move) rests on the same framework -- he knows that the example he alluded to isn't what he characterized it to be, so better off to remain vague and insist without citing anything that can be scrutinized. And the other apologists, knowing that their broader ruse depends on this tactic, defend the behavior. If bmiller's silly lie is exposed for what it is, then how does that reflect on them?
Better, apparently, to pretend to be right, than to act rationally and morally and risk embarrassment or discomfort. That is the sad thing we learn from these encounters.
Which is why bmiller resists revealing this now famous, nail-in-the-coffin prior example that will flip the charges once and for all! -- the prior example that bmiller avows will show us how a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move! Because if bmiller were to finally do that, his little game will be exposed, like all of apologetics, for the transparent chicanery it is.
SP "Congratulations, you have defined 1 electron in the universe to be perpetually at rest no matter what forces are applied to it because you have arbitrarily defined it to be the center of its own reference frame. How idiotic."
So let us consult the wikipedia, that universal fount of wisdom. On Rest Frame it has as first sentence:
"In special relativity the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest." So what? Yes, it is possible to define 1 particle as being at rest. That's what I said you did, define 1 electron in the universe as being at rest. That is your argument for a thing at rest causing a moving thing to move? How pathetic.
So, out of some 10^80 electrons in the observable universe you arbitrarily pick 1, ignore its motion relative to all the rest, and arbitrarily define that particular electron as being at rest, and no matter what forces act upon it that unique electron remains at rest. That special electron becomes the magic electron that is never accelerated by a force acting upon it because you have literally defined it as the center of the universe.
What an incredibly stupid way to try to bolster an obvious misreading of the First Way.
Ok, physics genius, Aquinas did not define a rest frame for an electron. He was speaking of ordinary objects, such as wood. In ordinary observations people tend to implicitly use the Earth as their reference frame. A flame is moving relative to the Earth, wood appears stationary, until the moving flame sets it on fire, which causes the wood to burn, and thus move.
A moving thing makes a stationary thing move, according to Aquinas, and that observation is very reasonable at our ordinary level of perception.
"Apologetics survives as an enterprise by implying that the rational reasons for believing are out there, but never gets around to presenting them in careful detail; supposedly, the real reasons, the good reasons, are always somewhere else, cited in a way sufficiently vague as to avoid real scrutiny."
Projection.
"If scrutiny is allowed, and the reasoning shown to be fallacious, apologetics responds by moving the goalpost to another new vague set of "real" reasons. And the whack-a-mole game is carried on ad infinitum."
Atheists are the ones who move the goalposts all over the place, hiding behind the cowardly "I merely lack belief" lie.
"On the same level, bmiller's silly lie (that a prior example was given for a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move) rests on the same framework -- he knows that the example he alluded to isn't what he characterized it to be, so better off to remain vague and insist without citing anything that can be scrutinized."
Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples. Suddenly we have atheists claiming that Bmiller KNOWS those are bad examples, that he KNOWS they don't prove some point or other, presumably because some atheists disagree, and atheists have such a track record at being reasonable. And since he KNOWS that he is wrong in those examples, because atheists said so, yet he persists in saying that examples were given despite atheists disagreeing, well then by golly he must be LYING.
Of course, a far more rational interpretation of the evidence is grod posted the examples, bmiller agreed, atheists disagreed, bmiller was not impressed that the atheists disagreed and said that examples had been given, atheists can't fathom anyone disagreeing with them without being stupid or brainwashed or lying so they accuse him falsely of lying when he clearly didn't (lie being intentional deceit, which has not been established even in part), and now atheists are flapping their arms and crying and going off on rants against people who dare to disagree with them.
Incoming disagreement with illustration of how that is like apologists in general in three...two...
Legion: "Atheists are the ones who move the goalposts all over the place, hiding behind the cowardly "I merely lack belief" lie."
Then I don't think you know what it means to move the goalposts.
Legion: "Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples. Suddenly we have atheists claiming that Bmiller KNOWS those are bad examples, that he KNOWS they don't prove some point or other, presumably because some atheists disagree, and atheists have such a track record at being reasonable. And since he KNOWS that he is wrong in those examples, because atheists said so, yet he persists in saying that examples were given despite atheists disagreeing, well then by golly he must be LYING."
Please copy and paste the section of text where you think it is that these explicit examples were given -- that a motionless thing CAUSES a motionless thing to move. Saying that Grod mentioned gravity and particles, and that bmiller said, "Yeah!" is EXACTLY the kind of weak tactic I have been pointing out here.
bmiller said he had explicit examples of a motionless thing CAUSING another motionless thing to move. Just copy and paste the part where you read this explicit example.
Then we will all be able to see what example you now say you think bmiller was referring to.
Do you know why you and bmiller resist this? Because then we'll all see that no explict example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move was given. We will see that grod gestures vaguely to a standard and necessary technique for describing motion in physics -- establishing the reference frame from which other object motion is evaluated -- that has NOTHING to do with a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move.
" Atheists are the ones who move the goalposts all over the place, hiding behind the cowardly "I merely lack belief" lie." I am personally convinced there is no god.
" atheists can't fathom anyone disagreeing with them without being stupid or brainwashed or lying " I have indeed observed the segmentation of the theistic mind. In general theists are very bright and successful people. Unfortunately most quite apparently suffer some kind of rationality breakdown on the subject of god.
This shows itself here in an inability to face the glaring defects of the First Way. Not all theists suffer this particular breakdown. More sophisticated theists have abandoned the first way and moved on to the Kalam, which is much more carefully worded and avoids the blatant defects of the words of Aquinas.
For some reason there are people here who seem to have some sort of deep personal investment in the First Way, combined with rather acute cases of selective mental breakdown, hence the absurd readings of the First Way that gives us gibberish such as: "an existent thing causes a potential thing to become an existent thing".
"Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples."
Thank you for proving that it's possible to actually search back through previous comments. Perhaps someday atheists too will evolve and acquire that ability.
I expect them if they are honorable people to apologize now for calling me a liar. I will hold my breath until I do. :-)
One other thing to note: "a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move." is technically not a premise or conclusion of the First Way. That's why I called attention to it.
Since motion in the parlance of the First Way means change, that formulation would be saying that a changeless thing would cause another changeless thing to change. You can tell from this formulation what is wrong. Aristotle allowed for everything to be changing except of course for the changeless changer.
I must confess that I am confused about the last 50 or so posts. What, exactly, has been lied about and how is it relevant to the success or failure of the First Way argument?
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can." Legion: "Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples." bmiller: "Thank you for proving that it's possible to actually search back through previous comments. Perhaps someday atheists too will evolve and acquire that ability."
LOL.
Apologists confuse saying they agree with one another with actually demonstrating the thing on which they agree. That's how you can tell you're dealing with apologists -- they assure you they are right, but they never get around to demonstrating how.
Look at the above exchange. It's a laugh riot.
bmiller claims that explicit examples have been given where a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
Btw, this is ground-breaking stuff. This is the kind of thing that upends physics. There are going to be Nobels for this kind of discovery. And because of it's importance, we have a very, very stringent vetting process for this claim. So, what is it?
Legion: "Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples."
LOL.
Is anyone ever going to just copy and paste this famous, Nobel-winning, explicit example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? Or are you guys just going to pass out your secret Nobels amongst one another? Because you're all, so, you know, super busy. Too busy to copy and paste. But not too busy to comment on ad infinitum.
Chris: "I must confess that I am confused about the last 50 or so posts. What, exactly, has been lied about and how is it relevant to the success or failure of the First Way argument?"
Apologist deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move. They declare that a thing need not be moving in order to move something else. (This is because if they allow that only a moving thing can move something else, then the conclusion of the First Way violates one of its premises.)
So, skeptics have asked for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move.
Rather than provide this example, bmiller has declared that "explicit examples" have already been given. When asked to provide these explicit examples (just copy and paste), bmiller has refused, but insisted that they exist.
Apologist here probably understand that if they can't provide an example a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, then the First Way rests on a false premise. And this means that the First Way is a flawed argument.
Apologists here don't want to admit that (after all, they've spent tons of comments here pretending that the argument is super good, actually), and so they basically have decided to lie that the First Way doesn't rely on a false premise by declaring that they have provided some prior example, which they somehow, mysteriously, refuse to ever bring up again.
I must confess that I am confused about the last 50 or so posts. What, exactly, has been lied about and how is it relevant to the success or failure of the First Way argument?
The atheists here have accused me of lying because I agreed with a post from grodrigues that he provided examples of things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum and because I refused to link or repost the original.
Now that Legion of Logic confirmed that both posts exist, you can judge for yourself how they react. One of the things you will notice is that the atheists here will try to change the premises of the First Way or misunderstand (purposely?) the premises. I originally gave them the benefit of the doubt that they merely misunderstood, but I’m changing my mind.
The only lie I have detected is from the atheists accusing bmiller of not talking about grod's examples, which took me less than five minutes to verify. As bmiller himself agreed that those examples were indeed what he was talking about, then the atheists' accusations of him lying are themselves lies. Of course, anti-religious atheists tend to support their beliefs by lying to themselves and others, since facts usually aren't in their favor.
"Apologists confuse saying they agree with one another with actually demonstrating the thing on which they agree."
Atheists confuse their own arrogant certainty with reality. Atheists invented a premise - "only moving things can cause movement" - and then demanded defense of the First Strawman argument they devised. Grod posted two examples he believed constituted things that can cause motion (physical movement, not Aquinas' terminology) without themselves having to move per se (February 14, 2017 4:55 PM). Bmiller agreed with those examples (February 14, 2017 9:18 PM). Atheists disagreed with those examples (February 14, 2017 7:37 PM). Atheists ON THE SAME DAY THAT THEY DISAGREED WITH THE EXAMPLES BEING GIVEN, began demanding examples (February 14, 2017 9:41 PM). Bmiller referenced those examples as having already been given. Atheists began calling bmiller a liar, and the only valid way bmiller could be a liar is if examples had not been given - not examples that convince atheists, just examples.
I actually took the time to check the post history - in this case, the entirety of valid evidence for whether or not bmiller was lying - and verified that indeed, grod gave two examples, and that indeed, those were the examples bmiller was referring to. Thus, it is obvious that bmiller was not lying that examples had been given, and that the atheists were lying that he had not.
A further point of interest is that EVEN IF the atheists are right about the two examples themselves not being examples, it does not require bmiller to be correct about those examples in order to not be lying - it only requires that bmiller not believe he is wrong about them, but continue to deceive and say he is right about them. As there is zero evidence that bmiller was being deceptive, beyond the wild fantasies that only exist in the atheists' minds, then it is obvious that the atheists are lying about bmiller having examples (disagreement and possibly being unknowingly wrong is not lying). If the atheists failed to convince bmiller that those examples were bad, then bmiller is STILL not lying by any true definition of the word.
Furthermore, Cal's attempt to change the goalposts here is also an attempt to deceive. Bmiller and I agreed about the fact that grod had given examples (right or wrong), and that bmiller had agreed with those examples (I myself have offered no opinion on those two examples, as I am not interested in engaging the First Strawman argument). Bmiller and I also agreed that it was the atheists who were lying, as is easily demonstrated by a few minutes of reading. To be fair, in this case the atheists may not be lying - they might truly believe they are correct, based upon the typical anti-theist inability to ever admit to being wrong, and their brains literally can't see obvious contradicting evidence. That would be a bigger problem than being a liar, for sure.
In this case, however, another lie is made - that bmiller and I are agreeing about the examples offered to address the First Strawman premise being CORRECT. Bmiller does, I myself have not offered a position and have no opinion on them, as they are irrelevant to the First Way's premises and conclusion. Fallacies and lies are what we are getting from the atheists at this point.
Cal: "Is anyone ever going to just copy and paste this famous, Nobel-winning, explicit example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? Or are you guys just going to pass out your secret Nobels amongst one another? Because you're all, so, you know, super busy. Too busy to copy and paste. But not too busy to comment on ad infinitum."
Not one word of this is relevant. We can't even get the atheists on here to admit that God should be capitalized per standard English grammar, which is easily verified. Thus, the truth of a proposition is demonstrably independent of the atheists' opinion of the proposition.
Anti-religious atheists seem to believe - probably due to their natural arrogance - that the only way an example can be valid is if they themselves are convinced. Examples were given, as I demonstrated. The atheists disagreed, and that's fine. Perhaps grod and bmiller are wrong, I really don't care as it is the First Strawman argument. But to accuse them of lying when they are plainly not lying, is lying. The atheists here are liars.
Cal: "Apologist deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move."
Here is the text of the First Way argument. Please extract from it the line that states only a moving thing causes something to move.
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.
Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.
Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.
Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.
But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
Why would the skeptic ask for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? The conclusion of the argument is the changeless changer. Being changeless implies that there couldn't be a physical observation of the changeless changer because anything that is available to the senses is neccesarily not changeless.
Your bafflement is due to you understanding the argument, and they not understanding it. They are trying to, as you said, force the First Way argument into a scientific thesis, much like the alleged "God hypothesis" is supposedly a scientific question. They can't move their minds outside of scientism to think in terms of metaphysics.
" Why would the skeptic ask for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move?" Indeed, to ask for such a thing makes no sense, and such an assertion is not to be found in the beginning of the First Way, yet theists here insist that is what the argument calls for, and they insist on having already provided examples of motionless things that cause other motionless things to move.
So, it is not we atheists who assert such a motionless cause of motion, rather, it is a couple theists who are falsely claiming that is a premise of the first way and they have examples of that claimed premise. We atheists are only asking for these theists to back up those claims.
G had the honesty to simply state his claim, whereas bmiller is being dishonest about it.
This is the section in question: *For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.*
Clearly, Aquinas is asserting that a moving thing causes a motionless thing to move.
" The conclusion of the argument is the changeless changer. " Which contradicts the above premise in the first way. Hence, the First Way is self contradictory.
People like bmiller suffer some sort of mental breakdown when confronted with this glaring deficiency of the First Way. He has resorted to all manner of bizarre definition changes, denials of plain logic, and even lies about having examples that back up the gibberish his crazy interpretations present.
The simple truth is that Aquinas starts out making a number of uncontroversial observations about motion as we ordinarily observe it. He then goes on to contradict himself, beg the question, and introduce a false premise at the end in the form of an implied conclusion, that god exists.
So, the First Way starts out very reasonably, then in the second half falls completely to pieces. For the theist who is invested in the First Way this reality is apparently unbearable, and the display of theistic irrationality and dishonesty that ensues is truly sad to witness.
"In this case, however, another lie is made - that bmiller and I are agreeing about the examples offered to address the First Strawman premise being CORRECT. Bmiller does, I myself have not offered a position and have no opinion on them, as they are irrelevant to the First Way's premises and conclusion. Fallacies and lies are what we are getting from the atheists at this point. "
I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way (e.g. "Neither is any of this remotely relevant to the First Way because -- oh why do I bother", etc.). They are *just* counter-examples to an assertion made by Mr. Metzger and Stardusty, and proof that they do not have the least clue about physics, let alone the First Way, nothing more.
Chris: "Why would the skeptic ask for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move?"
Please try and follow along. You already asked this question, and I answered: Apologist deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move. They declare that a thing need not be moving in order to move something else. (This is because if they allow that only a moving thing can move something else, then the conclusion of the First Way violates one of its premises.)
Premises should be sound -- meaning, among other things, that they should be supported. Apologists here are refusing to support their chosen premise.
Why do you suppose that bmiller and Legion won't just copy and paste the explicit example they refer to of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? When one is defending an argument, is there ever a good reason for refusing to reveal the argument? Is refusing to reveal the argument a sign of a good argument, or a sign of a bad argument?
Chris: "The conclusion of the argument is the changeless changer."
Which rests on an unsound premise -- that something can move something else, without moving itself. Arguments with unsound premises are bad arguments. Apologists are twisting themselves in knots here in an attempt to avoid this conclusion. It's kind of sad, really.
Chris: Being changeless implies that there couldn't be a physical observation of the changeless changer because anything that is available to the senses is neccesarily not changeless."
Being changeless also stipulates that the thing itself cannot initiate change in something else. That is the riddle at the end of existence, and the one that is not resolved by the First Way. Sic.
Legion: "Your bafflement is due to you understanding the argument, and they not understanding it. They are trying to, as you said, force the First Way argument into a scientific thesis, much like the alleged "God hypothesis" is supposedly a scientific question. They can't move their minds outside of scientism to think in terms of metaphysics."
Translation: A bad argument (muddled language, unsound or contradictory, and ad hoc) is really a good argument if you free your mind of consistency, reason, and critical thinking!
Legion: "Here is the text of the First Way argument. Please extract from it the line that states only a moving thing causes something to move."
You misunderstand argument.
Devising an argument that is merely valid (basically meaning it doesn't contradict itself) is fairly trivial. But good arguments are both valid AND sound, meaning that with deductive arguments (which the First Way is) basically that the premises are testably correct (or, if the argument is inductive, that the conclusion itself is testable).
As you apologists have insisted, Aquinas should actually be read to mean that a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move. But this is demonstrably false -- only a thing in motion can cause a motionless thing to move.
So the argument sits with a dead mouse of a premise, one that you guys are trying to revive by insisting that you're not lying by demanding that we accept you assessment that a motionless thing actually can cause another motionless thing to move. Without actually providing the example that would support this premise. This is snake oil behavior. I am not surprised, because I have been discussing issues like this with snake oil salesman for a looong time now.
I wonder why you would refuse to support the argument you say you are defending.
From past experience, I can say with 100% reliability that those who refuse to support their argument, but insist nonetheless that they can, are simply lying -- to me, and maybe even to themselves.
Good arguments are always easy to support. It's the bad ones that are so difficult. So difficult that those who have something invested in them sometimes end up lying in an attempt to keep on pretending.
That is part of what it is to be human, I suppose. Still, it makes me sad.
grod: "I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way (e.g. "Neither is any of this remotely relevant to the First Way because -- oh why do I bother", etc.)."
Yes, as I recall I have also pointed out that what you wrote doesn't seem to be relevant to the hoped for defense from the apologists here. Still, you thought it vital enough to type out, fail to revise, and publish. So your wondering aloud kind of seems a little phony, doesn't it?
grod: "They are *just* counter-examples to an assertion made by Mr. Metzger and Stardusty, and proof that they do not have the least clue about physics, let alone the First Way, nothing more."
This kind of hurts bmiller's insistence that they somehow represent explicit examples of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, then, doesn't it?
" I myself have not offered a position and have no opinion on them, as they are irrelevant to the First Way's premises and conclusion." The First Way is an argument from motion, yet the premises of motion are irrelevant to the conclusions from motion?
"Fallacies and lies are what we are getting from the atheists at this point. " Which of my statements is a lie?
" I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way " Ok, so you offer no examples to counter the premise of the First Way that a moving thing causes motion. I agree.
Aquinas is clear that a moving thing puts a motionless thing into motion , hence "the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. " Or does somebody propose a magic stationary hand that moves a staff?
" They are *just* counter-examples to an assertion made by Mr. Metzger and Stardusty, and proof that they do not have the least clue about physics," You defined 1 electron in the universe as literally the center of the universe and not subject to acceleration when a force is applied to it by definition.
So, that is one preposterous "counter example" that you readily admit is irrelevant to the argument. So why the use of the plural "examples"? You only get to define 1 magic electron that is an immovable celestial anchor at the center of the universe.
The First Way defeats itself by stating that a moving thing puts a motionless thing in motion. Also, nothing moves itself, and everything that moves is moved by another, and this cannot go on for infinity. Therefore god cannot be the first mover, because god moved the universe, so god must have been moving and therefore could not have moved himself and must have been moved by another, unless he was moving for infinity, but this process cannot go to infinity, Aquinas tells us.
Sorry G, it is you who "do not have the least clue about .. the First Way", since you fail to see its glaring self contradiction.
"Devising an argument that is merely valid (basically meaning it doesn't contradict itself) is fairly trivial."
So...you're saying the First Way argument is not contradictory and does not contain the premise " a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move".
Applause!!
Now then, you state that apologists have been insisting that Aquinas be interpreted to mean that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move. Even if we use motion in Aquinas' definition and call the unmoved mover the unchanged changer, I still can't derive from it "a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move."
But I went back to check the posts on the ridiculous lie subject, so I will go back and see where this phrase originated.
"I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way"
Yes, and my response to you highlighted how futile it was to give someone explicit counter-examples to their specific objections when their response was to say the examples were irrelevant. Not everyone who takes a class can understand the course material or can follow the logic so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when we see it playing out.
"In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
It seems the strategy is to flood the combox until everyone forgets.
bmiller: "It seems the strategy is to flood the combox until everyone forgets."
Actually, I gave you an answer to this a long time ago. You may have missed it.
I'll just paste it here:
Stardusty: "In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock. bmiller:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
"That's not a question. It's a false assertion. / But sure, if I were to form it into a question, I'd say that Aquinas's physics (Aristotelian) are refuted by classical physics -- that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (instead of needing to be pushed). You don't understand that yet because, it seems, you don't understand basic high school (middle school?) physics."
Do you need me to spell that out further for you -- the difference between AT physics, and modern (classical) physics?
Do you really think that AT physics and modern (classical) physics are one in the same?
" I still can't derive from it "a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move."
That's because you possess basic reading skills at a minimum.
*For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it... the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. *
Pretty clear, right?
"Nothing" is used in the context of a strong claim. Clearly, Aquinas states that only a thing in actuality can cause a change from potential to actuality.
Just to be even more clear Aquinas uses an example of a hot moving thing causing an apparently stationary thing to become hot and move.
And to reiterate his point even further Aquinas notes that a staff is put in motion only by a hand, which is plainly a moving hand. Very clear, right?
Nope, not to some of the folks here. They insist that Aquinas only means to say an existent thing causes motion. In this assertion "actuality" means "existent". So we then get the gibberish of: ***nothing can be reduced from potentiality to existence, except by something in a state of existence.***
Even further, it has been claimed repeatedly that examples of a motionless thing causing motion have already been provided!
The reason for this charade is clear, an inability or unwillingness to face the glaring self contradiction of the First Way. The asserted first mover violates the earlier premises of the argument itself. To avoid this self contradiction the dishonest theist claims a premise does not say what it clearly does in fact say.
We are at Ground Hog day again, regarding what I now consider deliberate amnesia regarding inertia and a deliberate misunderstanding of the First Way argument. What a surprise.
"The second reason is because throughout all these comments wrt the First Way, I have patiently reposted comments, added links to comments, rephrased things multiple times and in excruciatingly fine detail only to have the atheists here either ignore the posts or forget them."
"Apologists deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move." That is correct. The premise is that whatever changes must be changed by something else.
"This is because if they allow that only a moving thing can move something else, then the conclusion of the First Way violates one of its premises." Again, the premise is that whatever changes must be changed by something else, so there is no violation.
"...an unsound premise-that something can move something else, without moving itself." This is not a premise of the First Way. It is simply that whatever changes must be changed by something else.
"Being changeless also stipulates that the thing itself cannot initiate change in something else."
"Apologists deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move." That is correct. The premise is that whatever changes must be changed by something else."
Your use of the word "the" (singular) is incorrect. Aquinas presents multiple premises.
SD: "That's because you possess basic reading skills at a minimum."
Indeed, at a minimum. In actuality, mine appear to be far superior to yours, since I understand what Aquinas means by motion and you do not. What's amazing is he DEFINES what he means by motion in the very same argument, and you still botch it. Motion is a potential becoming an actual. That is the definition. It basically means change. If you want to discuss only physical movement as an alteration of XYZ coordinates, go find a physics discussion to misinterpret. Aquinas wrote a metaphysical argument.
Legion: "What's amazing is he DEFINES what he means by motion in the very same argument, and you still botch it. Motion is a potential becoming an actual. That is the definition. It basically means change. If you want to discuss only physical movement as an alteration of XYZ coordinates, go find a physics discussion to misinterpret. Aquinas wrote a metaphysical argument."
It's a metaphysical argument?
Is that like alternative medicine instead of medicine?
Or alternative facts instead of facts?
Does a metaphysical argument mean that premises don't have to be sound, or the conclusion can contradict a premise, or you can make ad hoc assertions?
If so, doesn't seem like metaphysical arguments are really arguments, now, does it?
SD: "That's because you possess basic reading skills at a minimum." ". Motion is a potential becoming an actual. " Ok, but actually what? In the example Aquinas gives and example of an actually moving thing (a flame) that makes a potentially moving thing (wood) actually move.
Actual motion causes potential motion to become actual motion, which is a perfectly reasonable observation based principle at our ordinary level of perception given the relatively primitive state of scientific knowledge at that time..
"That is the definition. It basically means change. " Right, and motion is a change in position. Just as a staff is caused to actually change position by a hand that is actually changing position.
"If you want to discuss only physical movement as an alteration of XYZ coordinates, go find a physics discussion to misinterpret." The First Way is an argument for god from motion. Motion is a change in coordinates. The first way is an argument predicated on the physics of motion.
" Aquinas wrote a metaphysical argument." Wrong. This is a physics argument. It is an argument from motion. The examples are physics examples involving a flame, heat, and the movement of an object by a hand. Physics. You can't run away from it. Combustion, heat, and movement are physics arguments.
With the benefit of modern science this becomes even more clear. Change of all sorts is motion, at least on the subatomic scale, but typically detectable at larger scales. It is all physics.
Change is motion. Motion is physics. The First Way is necessarily a physics argument, a very badly constructed and invalid, and thus unsound, physics argument.
"Is that like alternative medicine instead of medicine?"
Well the fact that you don't know what the difference between physics and metaphysics is, goes a long way to explaining your difficulty in understanding the argument.
SD,
The flame example is given due to the heat, not the flame moving around. Motion is change. When he says motion, he means change. When you force it to mean only local motion, you engage in a strawman. This is not an argument for God from physics.
I'm surprised you're still trying. They've demonstrated they aren't interested in honesty, and don't understand logic or physics including the underlying framework.
Do you really think that they have any interest in the truth after what we've seen? If they've continued to misquote little old me after it was pointed out to them, do you think they don't understand they are misquoting Aquinas also?
Well I was just about to bust into an explanation of essential vs accidental qualities of things, but I suspect you just might be right. A mere suspicion, mind you.
Me: "this argument still has the other problems I've pointed out -- that it doesn't relate to what we observe happening with real objects here in reality, where something doesn't magically move something else without itself having momentum (which means it is moving)."
Grod: "In the proper reference frame of a massive object like a star, the star has zero (linear) momentum (and angular as well if non-rotating), and yet it moves other objects by exerting gravitational pull. In the proper reference frame of a point-like electric charge like an electron, the electron has zero momentum and it still moves other objects because it creates an electromagnetic field."
Me: “And this relates to my point how?”
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can. / At least, some people have actually read the First Way and tried to think about it. I don't think that's a waste."
Stardusty: "By all means, please do give an example of a motionless thing that was caused to move by some other motionless thing."
bmiller: “Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant?”
Me: “They aren't relevant. An object in orbit, like a planet around a star, moves in orbit because it was moved by another object in a prior event, cascading back to the big bang."
bmiller: “Immediate failing grade. No more retries. You brought up the irrelevance of temporal beginnings. You also don't understand inertial reference frames.”
bmiller: “The atheists here have accused me of lying because I agreed with a post from grodrigues that he provided examples of things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum and because I refused to link or repost the original.”
grod: "I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way" bmiller: "Yes, and my response to you highlighted how futile it was to give someone explicit counter-examples to their specific objections when their response was to say the examples were irrelevant."
From the above it’s clear that you both don’t know what your’e talking about, you don’t understand what grod wrote, and you cannot (because it doesn’t exist) quote grod providing, in your words, “examples of things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum.”
I wonder why grod hasn’t correct you yet? After all, it’s his words that you’ve misrepresented when you falsely claim that he gave explicit examples of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, or, as you put it, things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum.
" The flame example is given due to the heat, not the flame moving around." Heat is motion.
" Motion is change." Right, a change in position. Change is motion as well. A thing changes because something about it has moved, physically, from one location to another location.
A change in temperature is motion, literally, physical position changing motion.
" When he says motion, he means change. When you force it to mean only local motion," What other kind of motion is there, spooky action at a distance?
" This is not an argument for God from physics. Of course it is. His examples are all about physics. His observations are all about physics.
Change does not occur in the absence of something. What is changing? How is it changing? What is actually changing? Some thing must be changing or else there is nothing to change.
Absolutely nothing at all cannot change, since there is no prior state or present state or future state for absolutely nothing at all. Some thing must exist and some property of that thing must change for there to be any sort of change. There is a word for the study of the changes of existent things:
" I just finished reading Edward Feser's "Blinded by Scientism". Excellent! " Feser does not understand the basics of his own subject.
*that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically.*
The author fails to understand that science is by its nature provisional. A scientific proof is a provisional proof. A scientific fact is a provisional fact. To establish a thing scientifically is to establish that thing provisionally.
It is the self consciously provisional nature of scientific inquiry that allows the rationality of scientific inquiry to be scientifically established.
"Just in case there is any doubt, you have not misrepresented me."
Thanks. I think it's pretty clear to anyone that's followed along that Cal can't follow even simple conversations much less understand the subject of physics.
grod: "@bmiller: / Just in case there is any doubt, you have not misrepresented me."
bmiller: “Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant?” grod: "I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way"
I'll let you two wonder-twins sort this one out.
Apologetics land provides insight about how important it is to maintain the appearance of group solidarity, at the expense of consistency and critical thinking.
Legion: "Well the fact that you don't know what the difference between physics and metaphysics is, goes a long way to explaining your difficulty in understanding the argument."
Is metaphysical argument different from an argument?
In other words, does calling an argument "metaphysical" mean that said argument is allowed to contradict one of its premises, or employ a premise that is testably false, or use ad hoc reasoning, etc.?
If a metaphysical argument is expected to use the same rules as an argument, why would calling the First Way metaphysical clear it of the problems that have been pointed out ad nauseam here?
This passage on the Cosmological argument address the subject of science and metaphysics,
" Since the point of the argument is precisely to explain (part of) what science itself must take for granted, it is not the sort of thing that could even in principle be overturned by scientific findings. For the same reason, it is not an attempt to plug some current 'gap' in scientific knowledge. Nor is it, in its historically most influential versions anyway, a kind of 'hypothesis' put forward as the 'best explanation' of the 'evidence'. It is rather an attempt at strict metaphysical demonstration. To be sure, like empirical science it begins with empirical claims that are so extremely general that (as I have said) science itself cannot deny them without denying its own evidential and metaphysical presuppositions. And it proceeds from these premises, not by probabilistic theorizing, but via strict deductive reasoning. In this respect, to suggest (as Richard Dawkins does) that the cosmological argument fails to consider more 'parsimonious' explanations than an uncaused cause is like saying that the Pythagorean theorem is merely a 'theorem of the gaps' and that more 'parsimonious' explanations of the 'geometrical evidence' might be forthcoming. It simply misunderstands the nature of the reasoning involved.
Of course, an atheist might reject the very possibility of such metaphysical demonstration. He might claim that there cannot be a kind of argument which, like mathematics, leads to necessary truths and yet which, like science, starts from empirical premises. But if so, he has to provide a separate argument for this assertion. Merely to insist that there cannot be such an argument simply begs the question against the cosmological argument.
None of this entails that the cosmological argument is not open to potential criticism. The point is that the kind of criticism one might try to raise against it is simply not the kind that one might raise in the context of empirical science. It requires instead knowledge of metaphysics and philosophy more generally." - Edward Feser
Wha specifically and exactly does it mean to have "knowledge" of metaphysics?
If one understands philosophy, logic, argument, and evidence, what specifically and exactly does what you call metaphysics add to how we organize our thinking around studying reality?
This passage on the Cosmological argument address the subject of science and metaphysics,
" to suggest (as Richard Dawkins does) that the cosmological argument fails to consider more 'parsimonious' explanations than an uncaused cause is like saying that the Pythagorean theorem is merely a 'theorem of the gaps' and that more 'parsimonious' explanations of the 'geometrical evidence' might be forthcoming. " Indeed, a triangle is an abstraction with no known physical realization. The notion that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides is ultimately unproved because it rests upon unproved postulates.
But unlike the unproved speculation of god we can make 3 dimensional approximations of triangles that in each case agree with the theorem as nearly as we are able to measure, starkly in contrast to the speculation of god for which there is no mathematical formulation and no approximate realizations available to measure.
Thus, the analogy is without merit.
"It simply misunderstands the nature of the reasoning involved." Au contraire, mon ami, the analogy itself reveals a profound lack of reasoning skills on the part of the author.
" Merely to insist that there cannot be such an argument simply begs the question against the cosmological argument." You are the one making up the wild speculation about god, it is not up to me to insist there cannot be such a thing any more than I must insist Russell's teapot is impossible. Your teapot, your burden.
" None of this entails that the cosmological argument is not open to potential criticism. The point is that the kind of criticism one might try to raise against it is simply not the kind that one might raise in the context of empirical science. It requires instead knowledge of metaphysics and philosophy more generally." - Edward Feser" Feser is most certainly wrong in the case of a Christian god, which is speculated to interact with the physical universe in a variety of scientifically detectable ways, and is thus, in principle, a subject of scientific investigation.
In the case of a deistic god that just poofed it all into existence and now hides from our detection that certainly is the classic god of the gaps argument. I can just as easily argue that inanimate superstuff that existed forever poofed the universe into existence.
The number of such formulations is in principle unbounded, they are all lacking in evidence, so the correct answer is we simply do not know and do not understand the origin of existence.
The simple truth is that no human being has solved this ancient problem and published that solution into general circulation.
The First Way is a particularly pathetic attempt to argue for god, at least by today's standards. We can appreciate the intelligence of the ancients and the progress they made lacking modern scientific knowledge, but as an argument in the 21st century it is invalid and thus unsound, and simply a very poorly constructed argument, so poorly worded as to hardly warrant the term "argument".
You see? Maybe you missed the part where Strawdusty told us he understood Aristotle's argument better than Aristotle himself as well as all of the commentators on the "unmoved mover argument" since Aristotle.
" "Oy"" Yes, my argumentation can be overwhelmingly irrefutable to the point that some people can only muster a simple syllable in response. When you regain your composure perhaps you will have something more substantial to add.
" You see?" I very much doubt you do.
" Maybe you missed the part where Strawdusty told us he understood Aristotle's argument better than Aristotle himself" Indeed I do, since I know ways Aristotle was wrong, my understanding of Aristotle's arguments is far superior to Aristotle's apparent understanding of them.
" as well as all of the commentators on the "unmoved mover argument" since Aristotle." All those who see the errors of Aristotle are potentially equal or better than my understanding. Those who continue to cling to Aristotelian physics are a pitiable lot.
I'll just recap, despite all the bluster and hand waving going on here from the apologists.
Apologists insist that Aquinas argument should include the odd premise that the mere existence of a thing is sufficient to move something else that's not moving.
But apologists deny that an existent thing has to also be moving itself in order to move another thing that's not moving. In other words, that there's no conservation of energy (magic!).
The reason they want to go with magic is because if they don't, the conclusion of the argument obviously contradicts the more natural, obvious reading of Aquinas, and the one that we can affirm with our everyday experience, and indeed, with more rigorous testing -- that only a thing in motion can cause something not already in motion to move.
So that's where we sit now. The apologists pretending that Aquinas should be read to invoke magic and deny the conservation of energy, because they're less afraid of that characterization than they are of the one where their argument obviously contradicts one of its premises.
And that is what best explains the shell game that tries to maintain the pretense that explicit examples have been given that a motionless thing can cause another motionless things to move, the endless caviling and refusal to address this gap, the special pleading that the argument should somehow be exempt from the requirements of good argument for the vague and woo-ish assertion that it is "metaphysical," etc.
"the general phenomenon of ‘clever sillies’ whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’"
Chris: "From my point of view, the critics here of the First Way have failed to make their case. I have no doubt that the critics will disagree. That's fine."
What's remarkable is the disparity between the quality of comments around the topic. Your comment is typical of this disparity.
Over and over and over, the skeptics here point out the obvious problems with the First Way.
Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance.
For instance, your comment above is common here -- it's not a meaningful response to the objections or prior comments brought up here by the skeptics, many in direct and careful response to your supposed questions.
But your comment is a signal of group unity, which is all that your mind apparently thinks needs to be done -- affirm that you belong to a group whose membership is established by a given consensus. This might be a kind of mental behavior, but it is not intellectual engagement of a topic.
Intellectual discussions (especially on the internet) are opportunities to dispassionately consider intellectual propositions, and exercise critical thinking to examine beliefs. Some (apologists in particular, but they are hardly alone) see these spaces as opportunities to express consensual thinking. I imagine that this satisfies some basic urge, in the same way that achieving a new level in a video game does.
I should say that I am grateful for apologist participation here. Not because their position has been shown to be reasonable, but because it so obviously (in the same way that pathologies reveal and underlying system) demonstrates mental behaviors that undoubtedly cloud all of our thinking. In other words, on a different subject, one in that I am as heavily invested as apologists, I would probably behave as the apologists do here. I think that what I can learn from observing apologist behavior here and in other discussions can be an effective way to improving thinking in general.
Interesting. Much of what you said I totally agree with, but in reverse of course. Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism.
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
bmiller: "It's kind of like pouring water into a sieve Chris."
Stevek: "If you re-read the past 560 comments you'll find what you're missing."
The conclusion follows from the premises that things move, nothing moves itself, and there cannot be an infinite essentially ordered series of moving movers, leaving only an unmoved mover as the logical conclusion.
bmiller: "It's very simple. Even a child can understand it."
Apparently not so simple that you can do what I asked--which I agree, is very simple indeed.
I asked, Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false. That is a criticism of the First Way that has been raised here (along with many others).
What do you believe has been the best response to this observation -- that a premise in the First Way, as defined by the apologists in this thread, is simply false (and, hence, it's conclusion is not supported)?
Let's go back to the beginning of this thread. The first few posts.
Bmiller says that the premises are not violated if the unchanged changer (first mover) does not itself undergo change. Stardusty lists some objections.
The objection about "motionless things causing motion" is not really a valid objection to the argument itself, since the argument is about change, not just physical movement. A theoretical first mover could have telekinetic power and cause movement without moving, so the objection is rooted in materialism - matter and energy cannot cause motion (it is claimed) without some form of physical interaction or energy transference, hence NOTHING can. If one does not hold to materialism, the objection is moot.
However, let's set aside theoreticals like telekinesis. Let's posit God for a moment as a candidate for the first mover. One of the objections is that if the first mover decides to act (as in, cause a change), then the first mover has itself changed and thus violates the argument. I don't agree with this, since God is regarded as omniscient - he has never NOT been going to act in that way, hence no decision occurred. It's not like you or I making a decision.
The only valid objection I see that needs to be addressed is, how can God (or any candidate for first mover) initiate change of any kind, without that being change of another kind?
In other words, the objection could be phrased like "If the first mover is not parting the Red Sea (example), and then the first mover is parting the Red Sea, then the act of the first mover parting the Red Sea is a potential that was actualized."
Thoughts on this? Does anyone think that the objection can be answered solely within the premises of the First Way, or do the additional proofs have to also be considered? After all, the First Way was never intended to be a standalone argument.
One thing I think is clear, the first mover can't consist of matter or energy. Otherwise Stardusty and Cal's objection would without question demolish the argument. A being like God?
"The objection about "motionless things causing motion" is not really a valid objection to the argument itself, since the argument is about change, not just physical movement."
No. If the argument fails on motion, which is probably the simplest description of change, then it necessarily fails on more complex descriptions. Aquinas begins with motion, for that reason.
Legion: ". A theoretical first mover could have telekinetic power and cause movement without moving, so the objection is rooted in materialism - matter and energy cannot cause motion (it is claimed) without some form of physical interaction or energy transference, hence NOTHING can. If one does not hold to materialism, the objection is moot."
Take it up with Aquinas then, who roots his argument in materialism -- real things moving, fire, staffs and hands -- these are all the stuff of materialism. Your interpretation fundamentally disrespects what Aquinas tried to achieve -- to explain an existential riddle based on what we experience. You are suggesting that he was trying to make an argument based on woo. I think that Aquinas was better than that, and am surprised that you would suggest otherwise.
" Interesting. Much of what you said I totally agree with, but in reverse of course." Like what, specifically? Up to this point I have seen almost nothing from you in specific argumentation, sometimes, rather, nothing more than literally a single syllable.
" Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- " Not by you that I have observed.
"and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism." The First Way is an argument from physics, unless you have somehow managed to remove change, heat, combustion, and movement from the realm of physics. Have you?
This is true. Materialism is incoherent and if that is your commitment you will find yourself in all sorts of impossibilities. The First Way is one way this can be illustrated.
If one affirms that material things change and that material things can't ultimately change themselves then the only logical solution is for something not changing to change them. But the materialist knows that all material things change so this is impossible in their world-view.
So they have 2 choices: 1) Widen their world-view. 2) Cling to a view that they know (and admit as we see in this thread) is incoherent.
What is odd is that some people who embrace #2 then claim that #1 is the incoherent choice.
" The objection about "motionless things causing motion" is not really a valid objection to the argument itself, since the argument is about change, not just physical movement. " Please name an observed change that does not require physical movement.
"A theoretical first mover could have telekinetic power and cause movement without moving," That's not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, rather, an idle speculation of an incoherent notion somehow existing in a foggy fantasy. "Telekinetic", really?
" If one does not hold to materialism, the objection is moot." If one does not hold to materialism rationality is moot and one lives in a world of pure fantasy.
" since God is regarded as omniscient - he has never NOT been going to act in that way, hence no decision occurred. It's not like you or I making a decision." So god has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision.
" After all, the First Way was never intended to be a standalone argument." Really? It is put forward as an argument from motion for god. It fails at that, obviously.
" One thing I think is clear, the first mover can't consist of matter or energy." God has to be made of something, else god is absolutely nothing at all.
" Otherwise Stardusty and Cal's objection would without question demolish the argument. A being like God?" Ok, god is demolished then. Call it what you want, matter, energy, superstuff, whatever. It must be some sort of material stuff that god is made of.
Cal: "Take it up with Aquinas then, who roots his argument in materialism -- real things moving, fire, staffs and hands -- these are all the stuff of materialism."
And Aquinas uses this to come to the conclusion of God, who is not made of the same material or energy as the universe.
SD: "Please name an observed change that does not require physical movement."
Personally don't think it can be done, based upon anything being changed by matter and energy (as in, stuff of the universe), which is a fantastic argument against materialism. Thank you for pointing out the extreme unlikelihood of materialism.
SD: "That's not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, rather, an idle speculation of an incoherent notion somehow existing in a foggy fantasy. "Telekinetic", really?"
What, you and Cal want to hog absurd answers as your exclusive domain? Besides, I used the example as a tongue-in-cheek method of pointing out the fatal flaws in materialism. Indeed, the matter and energy of the universe can't meet the definition of the first mover, due to their inherent limitations. Someone with the attributes of God sure could, which is one of many reasons to dismiss materialism.
SD: "If one does not hold to materialism rationality is moot and one lives in a world of pure fantasy."
Burden of proof is on you, and your assertion requires the acceptance of certain postulates that are unproven and must be accepted provisionally or on faith, or denied. I'm curious that you define rationality and fantasy based on unproven assertions.
SD: "So god [sic] has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision."
He certainly seems incapable of making you use correct grammar. Though I did read an article from some university or other today that said insistence on proper grammar was racist, so maybe that's your way of avoiding being a racist.
SD: "Really? It is put forward as an argument from motion for god [sic]. It fails at that, obviously."
It is also part of a much larger work that goes on to describe the attributes of God, thereby defining him as a far better candidate for a first mover than anything materialism has to offer.
SD: "God has to be made of something, else god [sic] is absolutely nothing at all."
Yes, but he doesn't have to be made of matter and energy as found in the universe. That's materialism, which is an unproven assertion.
SD: "Ok, god [sic] is demolished then. Call it what you want, matter, energy, superstuff, whatever. It must be some sort of material stuff that god [sic] is made of."
Materialism holds that everything that exists must obey the laws of physics, because everything that exists is made of the matter and energy to which the laws of physics apply. Materialism is an unproven assertion. Thus, you either have to demonstrate that God is bound by the same rules as the universe's stuff, or you have to demonstrate that there's no reason to believe in God (neither case has ever been made, so good luck).
I can see why the New Atheists struggle so much in these debates, with their intellects bound by such limiting philosophical shackles.
"The only valid objection I see that needs to be addressed is, how can God (or any candidate for first mover) initiate change of any kind, without that being change of another kind?"
This is not a valid objection. I have already said in this thread, twice at least, that Aquinas' view is not that God "initiates change", but that God is the cause of motion as such and without his concurrent, sustaining power there would be no change at all. The First Mover is first not because He is the head of the causal queue like
G ... -> e_n -> ... -> e_0
That is what someone like Newton wants to say, but that is not what Aquinas is interested in saying (although of course he does say that, but the *reasons* he says that are not rooted in his metaphysics but in revealed dogma, and therefore quite obviously, it is not something that he can use in an argument against a Gentile). Rather He is first in the sense that every other cause, or *secondary* cause, depends on God's power to be effective.
He is First, in the sense that every being depends on God's sustaining power for their very existence. Aquinas thinks that God's proper act, what distinguishes Him from every other being (including any demiurge, should any such exist, now matter how dignified), is *creation*. And creation for Aquinas is not merely a matter of bringing things into existence ("initiate change of any kind"), but of sustaining their very existence in the here and now.
And this is not just Aquinas' view, but basically the essence of theism as understood by orthodox, classical Christianity, as received and suitably adapted from the Greek tradition of Plato and Aristotle.
This is the routine: 1. Apologist asserts / asks a question about 5 things. 2. Stardusty goes through, point by point: boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Every point is addressed, with the opportunity for follow up. Apologist absorbs none of this, follows up on none of this, and basically acts as if 2 never happened.
And that is why we are still getting typical (as described by me above) examples like this:
SD: "So god [sic] has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision."
Legion: "He certainly seems incapable of making you use correct grammar. Though I did read an article from some university or other today that said insistence on proper grammar was racist, so maybe that's your way of avoiding being a racist."
SD: "Please name an observed change that does not require physical movement."
" Personally don't think it can be done, based upon anything being changed by matter and energy (as in, stuff of the universe)," Ok, so the First Way is a physics argument since all observed change is motion, only an actually moving thing can cause a motionless thing to move.
" which is a fantastic argument against materialism. " Non-sequitur. The realization that the First Way is a physics argument shows how it contradicts itself.
SD: "That's not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, rather, an idle speculation of an incoherent notion somehow existing in a foggy fantasy. "Telekinetic", really?"
" What, you and Cal want to hog absurd answers as your exclusive domain?" Ok, so it is an absurd suggestion, yet that is god, a telekinetic being, absurd indeed.
" Indeed, the matter and energy of the universe can't meet the definition of the first mover, due to their inherent limitations. Someone with the attributes of God sure could, which is one of many reasons to dismiss materialism." God must be made of something else god is no thing, nothing.
SD: "If one does not hold to materialism rationality is moot and one lives in a world of pure fantasy."
" Burden of proof is on you," A thing is material. The material is whatever that thing is made of whether we are presently familiar with it or not. God cannot be immaterial else god is no thing, literally nothing.
" and your assertion requires the acceptance of certain postulates that are unproven and must be accepted provisionally or on faith, or denied. I'm curious that you define rationality and fantasy based on unproven assertions." W L Craig is not entirely wrong on every subject. He has some rational skills. He actually does a fairly good job differentiating a reasonable assertion from a certainty, identifying that which is rational even though it is not absolutely certain.
SD: "So god [sic] has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision."
" He certainly seems incapable of making you use correct grammar. " There is no god of grammar. Language is used by convention. Every individual may use language in any desired manner.
"Though I did read an article from some university or other today that said insistence on proper grammar was racist, so maybe that's your way of avoiding being a racist." I know of no person who is not racist to some degree. Jesse Jackson is an admitted racist against black people, for example.
SD: "Really? It is put forward as an argument from motion for god [sic]. It fails at that,
obviously."
" It is also part of a much larger work that goes on to describe the attributes of God, thereby
defining him as a far better candidate for a first mover than anything materialism has to offer." That assumes that there must be a first mover. The truth is nobody knows how to solve the problem
of the origins of existence.
SD: "God has to be made of something, else god [sic] is absolutely nothing at all."
" Yes, but he doesn't have to be made of matter and energy as found in the universe. That's
materialism, " No, materialism is not confined to the forms of matter and energy we presently are aware of, that
would be a very limited way of thinking. Scientists are always looking for any possible
undiscovered form of material
SD: "Ok, god [sic] is demolished then. Call it what you want, matter, energy, superstuff,
whatever. It must be some sort of material stuff that god [sic] is made of."
" Materialism holds that everything that exists must obey the laws of physics, " Principles, not laws, but ok.
"because everything that exists is made of the matter and energy to which the laws of physics
apply." No, physics is not limited to matter and energy as we presently understand it. If some new
material is discovered then that will be a part of physics that presently exists but is also
presently unknown.
" Thus, you either have to demonstrate that God is bound by the same rules as the universe's
stuff," If god exists then god is part of all that exists and is therefor part of the universe and made of
something else god is no thing and does not exist.
" I can see why the New Atheists struggle so much in these debates, with their intellects bound
by such limiting philosophical shackles." Your limitation is in thinking is in thinking materialism is limited to matter and energy as we
I wonder if you have considered that some people are just so locked into a certain worldview that they literally cannot conceive of anything else. I think you can see this from the External World thread.
The materialist, cannot muster enough of an abstract thought process to even begin to understand what the immaterialist position actually is. And so he imagines the immaterialist holds a different position than what was stated, one that the materialist can actually mentally process.
So maybe some people are just not very good with abstract thinking.
And that flub was after 560 comments that were mostly devoted to clarifying the argument. At this rate, I estimate that it will take another 45,189 comments before you have it figured out.
SteveK: "In every sane persons experience, Cal cannot even get the argument right. His most recent flub was recorded here:
me: "For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false."
Good. Then you agree with me, and Stardusty, that the correct reading of Aquinas is that only a moving thing can cause a motionless thing to move, and that a motionless thing cannot cause another motionless thing to move.
I am glad that you agree that that is the sensible reading of the First Way, which is also consistent with what we observe.
"And that flub was after 560 comments that were mostly devoted to clarifying the argument. At this rate, I estimate that it will take another 45,189 comments before you have it figured out."
Well, that assumes that your interlocutor actually wants to understand the argument or can. You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it. We haven't seen that yet and I doubt we will.
bmiller: "The materialist, cannot muster enough of an abstract thought process to even begin to understand what the immaterialist position actually is. And so he imagines the immaterialist holds a different position than what was stated, one that the materialist can actually mentally process."
What you call an "abstract thought process" is really just incoherence, magic, and woo.
Laughable that "telekinesis" and any other number of superstitious wonderings are the apologist offerings here for how to save the notion that the First Way determines a riddle, let alone solves it.
To be clear, the only people who understand the First Way are those who see its faults.
If you can't see the problems with the First Way, and you resist understanding its shortcomings, then no one can help you.
Here's the test for those who pretend that they understand an argument that skeptics can't apprehend: what does your supposed understanding do for you?
Apologist: "You don't understand the First Way, and I do! So, therefore...."
And, nothing.
That's the test that everyone who's ever been hoodwinked into buying snake oil never gets around to asking themselves. And that's what it's like to be a rube.
@bmiller, We've been going through that cycle for weeks.
You: Here's the argument Cal: No, that's not the argument. THIS is the argument. It's got huge problems. You: Aquinas disagrees with you for reasons X, Y and Z. Are you saying Aquinas didn't understand his own argument? Cal: Yes
Peanut gallery: "Apologist: Here's the argument / Cal: No, that's not the argument. THIS is the argument. It's got huge problems. / Apologist: Aquinas disagrees with you for reasons X, Y and Z. Are you saying Aquinas didn't understand his own argument?"
Explain to me how an argument from motion can be sound if it doesn't recognize that a motionless thing does not cause another motionless thing to move -- or just provide that super secret example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move.
You are so eager to defend the argument per se, that you forget that that the argument's premises need to map to a territory -- that a premise that is unsound makes for a bad (deductive) argument. That if a premise of an argument is that pink fairies only ride unicorns on Tuesday, then the argument's conclusion will be of little value no matter how valid its logic.
An infinite past is not compatible with the wished-for conclusion, therefore it can't exist.
A creator god MUST really exist but not in any way that's real, and not in any way that is compatible with existence.
Telekinesis.
creation is *NOT* a kind change.
This is among the casserole of nonsense thrown out by the apologists on this thread, and when I asked for any restatement of what anyone thought represented the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here, I get.... nothing.
You can tell that the atheists aren't capable of reading comprehension since they think I offered telekinesis as a serious argument, despite my pointing out it was tongue in cheek. If they can't even understand that, it's no wonder they are trying to force the First Way into a physics argument and making fools of themselves.
I wonder, does New Atheism attract fools, or does it create them?
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 3162 Newer› Newest»bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
bmiller: "I’ll let grodrigues speak for himself..."
Nope. Your words. It seems like you would like to run away from them now. I wonder why that is.
bmiller: "... but I wonder why you’ve changed the premises…again."
Because that's the premise you have been trying to find a way to defend, without actually defending it. Because, it's indefensible. But that's been your choice throughout, so we will continue to point it out.
@Cal,
"Me: "you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant,"
Do you see how his responses were relevant now? If you want to dispute him please do so.
"Because that's the premise you have been trying to find a way to defend, without actually defending it. Because, it's indefensible. But that's been your choice throughout, so we will continue to point it out."
Please study the premises that the defenders of the First Way have been defending and then compare it to what Strawdusty just wrote. Tell me if you see a difference. Then get back with me.
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
Is this running away from defending what you wrote, which is also how we've been told we should both read the premises AND is the only conclusion of the First Way -- is that what you guys think is defending the First Way from refutation?
What a massive fraud you are.
@Cal,
I've asked you 2 questions. Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant? Why did Strawdusty change the premises?
You can't seem to understand even these simple questions. If you can't answer these questions there's no use for me to go on.
You also can't seem to remember what you post comment to comment and day to day. You still cannot read back to me the First Way in a way that I recognize it after almost 3 months of patient explanation by numerous people here. I'm afraid you've failed the course. Try again next year.
bmiller: "Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant?"
They aren't relevant. An object in orbit, like a planet around a star, moves in orbit because it was moved by another object in a prior event, cascading back to the big bang. The force of gravity that keeps the planet in orbit is NOT what caused the planet to move, although it does affect the trajectory of its motion.
So, although gravity is interesting to talk about, gravity is NOT an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. It is an example of a force that affects the trajectory of an object in motion.
Regarding the movement of particles, these are affected by the position of other particles. So, while there are other forces involved that affect the movement of these particles, the motion of particles is a result of other moving particles with which they have interacted.
Why did Strawdusty change the premises?
He didn't.
I'm still waiting for your answer to the same question:
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
Tick tock.
@Cal,
"They aren't relevant. An object in orbit, like a planet around a star, moves in orbit because it was moved by another object in a prior event, cascading back to the big bang."
Immediate failing grade. No more retries. You brought up the irrelevance of temporal beginnings. You also don't understand inertial reference frames.
Me:"Why did Strawdusty change the premises?"
Cal:"He didn't."
Another immediate failing grade. You simply can't read. Don't bother me again unless you can answer the question correctly.
But if you are so eager to go on, why don't you answer this for question from days ago to Strawdusty:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
bmiller: "Immediate failing grade. No more retries. You brought up the irrelevance of temporal beginnings."
Nope. I pointed out that talk of motion without reference to time is nonsensical. The apologists here are the ones who are trying to say that the argument from motion has nothing to do with time. thatTry to keep that simple fact in your head.
bmiller: "You also don't understand inertial reference frames."
Um hm.
bmiller: "Me:"Why did Strawdusty change the premises?"
Me:"He didn't."
bmiller: "Another immediate failing grade. You simply can't read. Don't bother me again unless you can answer the question correctly."
It seems like you're becoming more and more unhinged. Maybe you should take some time away, like Legion, and come back and read this thread in a year.
bmiller: "But if you are so eager to go on, why don't you answer this for question from days ago to Strawdusty: "If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger."
That's not a question. It's a false assertion.
But sure, if I were to form it into a question, I'd say that Aquinas's physics (Aristotelian) are refuted by classical physics -- that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (instead of needing to be pushed). You don't understand that yet because, it seems, you don't understand basic high school (middle school?) physics.
I think there is something to what Stardusty says about the mind of the apologist, and delusions.
Are you going to get around to offering that example?
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
Here's my prediction: you'll just insult, and get things terribly wrong, and make some false assertions, and try and hide and cover up the fact that you can't do what you said you can do -- provide the example that would help you defend the silly First Way's notion that a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
And you'll never understand how basically every person in the modern world sees how this makes the First Way such a failed argument.
Tick tock, bmiller, tick tock.
@Cal,
"It seems like you're becoming more and more unhinged. Maybe you should take some time away, like Legion, and come back and read this thread in a year."
No, not unhinged. But I am tired of diagraming sentences for you so you understand them. If you didn't see the change I won't help you.
"But sure, if I were to form it into a question, I'd say that Aquinas's physics (Aristotelian) are refuted by classical physics -- that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (instead of needing to be pushed). You don't understand that yet because, it seems, you don't understand basic high school (middle school?) physics."
Ah yes, you forgot again. What a surprise. I guess it's been more that a couple days since it was demonstrated to you that Newtonian physics agrees with the First Way. Sorry for your condition.
No more answers until you find out what changed in the premises. Do you have some sort of impediment to seeing it?
bmiller: "No more answers until you find out what changed in the premises. Do you have some sort of impediment to seeing it?"
More answers?
More?
There's only be one question on the table for you for a looooong time now, and you can't crawl away from it fast enough.
Quit stalling.
Stardusty: "I am waiting for an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move. Tick tock."
Tick tock, bmiller, tick tock.
@Chris,
If you are still around.
When you see someone say something like this:
Logic has quite apparently served us well, yet no human being has published into general circulation a logical solution to the problem of the origin of existence.
All proposals end in illogic, yet an existence is absolutely certain. Clearly, human logic fails to account for at least one thing.
He has just told you that he believes that the universe is unintelligible. Since a foundational principle of western science is the universe is indeed intelligible, it would be illogical for that person to insist that western science proves his point, After all, he’s just told us the foundation of science is false.
But I guess, once someone concludes that things don’t make sense, then you are freed from the constraints of logic and rationality. This seems to be the case here.
@Cal,
"No more answers until you find out what changed in the premises. Do you have some sort of impediment to seeing it?"
I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move, that we are no longer discussing the First Way, so I risk derailing the thread by bringing it back up.
However, I think this link is worth reading. I've seen it before, and may have even posted it before, but heading toward 1000 posts between the threads, and I can't remember.
http://augustinecollective.org/argument-from-motion/
@ Legion of Logic,
No fair. You gave it away.
Have you heard this one:
It was the thread that never ends
miller said...
SP ”By all means, please do give an example of a motionless thing that was caused to move by some other motionless thing.”
" I’ll let grodrigues speak for himself, but I wonder why you’ve changed the premises…again."
bmiller said...
" When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case "
February 14, 2017 9:18 PM
bmiller is either mentally retarded in his or her entirety, selectively mentally retarded, or a liar.
You claim to have "explicit examples" yet you then claim I have "changed the premises" when I ask for them.
What are your "explicit examples" for "only something moving can move something else... not the case"?
Absent the specific examples you claim, I repeat, you are either mentally retarded or a liar.
Legion of Logic said...
" I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move,"
That was bmiller's claim, to have provided "explicit examples" of just that.
Yet he is unable to provide those examples.
G piped up in agreement, so both are on the hook for those examples.
Tick Tock.
February 15, 2017 8:40 PM
@Stardusty Psyche,
"What are your "explicit examples" for "only something moving can move something else... not the case"?
Sorry. I'm not going to read to you. If you can't take the trouble to see what people are discussing then don't comment.
@Strawdusty,
Oh yes. Tick Tock for how many days now?
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
bmiller said...
@Stardusty Psyche,
SP "What are your "explicit examples" for "only something moving can move something else... not the case"?
" Sorry. I'm not going to read to you. If you can't take the trouble to see what people are discussing then don't comment."
Liar, you have no such examples.
February 16, 2017 5:45 AM
@Legion of Logic:
"I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move, that we are no longer discussing the First Way, so I risk derailing the thread by bringing it back up."
To be fair, there *never* was a discussion of the First Way, but in the best of cases a discussion of the sillyness read *into* the First Way.
So, bmiller, you're just going to rest on a lie, and failure then?
Quelle surprise!!!
Legion: "I see, from the demand for a motionless thing that causes another motionless thing to move, that we are no longer discussing the First Way, so I risk derailing the thread by bringing it back up."
Um, the First Way concludes that a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move. The only way that it's premises can be non-contradictory is to take the position that things that cause things to move do not undergo any motion themselves.
If the argument isn't about a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, then we have (again) reached the point where apologists have to pretend that the First Way somehow shows that a deity must exist, without defending any of the responsibilities from that argument.
Which is all we ever get. This thread is an exorbitant example of just that.
@Strawdusty,
"Liar, you have no such examples."
Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?
"Um, the First Way concludes that a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move. The only way that it's premises can be non-contradictory is to take the position that things that cause things to move do not undergo any motion themselves."
Condensing the argument to nothing but physical location movement is a strawman, and I won't engage with it. If you want to argue the First Strawman argument, say so and we will quickly agree that it is a terrible argument and then move on.
Read the link I posted in my previous post last night - those of us here did not simply decide to change word definitions. But, fun thought experiment: even if Aquinas was completely wrong and only meant what you and SD are stating about physical movement (which those familiar with his and Aristotole's works would disagree with), then we would agree that they were wrong, and we would then present the argument as we are presenting it, and ask it to be refuted. Essentially, hanging up on the translation of Aquinas' argument is beside the point.
The premise of the First Way is that something that undergoes a change must be acted upon by something else in order for that change to occur. A stationary ball will not move itself, a rolling ball will not stop itself. Wood can't make itself hot. A person will not decide to go get a pizza slice if there is no pizza.
And the whole point of the first mover is that if every causal agent derives its power to change something else FROM something else (in other words, if every causal agent is an actualized potential, a potential state that was made reality), then there would be no change anywhere in the system. Like links in a chain holding a heavy weight in the air, each link's ability to hold a weight in the air is entirely dependent on the very first link. If it fails, the rest immediately lose their power to lift.
@Cal,
"So, bmiller, you're just going to rest on a lie, and failure then?"
Cal, can you not even remember yesterday? You're too much maintenance. Goodbye.
bmiller: "Cal, can you not even remember yesterday? You're too much maintenance. Goodbye."
Translation: you cannot come up with an example, and are not man enough to admit it.
What an exemplar for your beliefs you are.
@Cal,
You are a confused person.
You can't even remember what we discussed yesterday, or detect subtle but important differences in the way things are stated. That's not even mentioning that you don't have a grasp on how logic works.
I've stayed on the thread this long only because I noticed that Chris started reading and within several exchanges had already understood the First Way argument.
Some people can't or won't try.
So, since I other things to do, and it looks like anyone who is interested in learning is no longer reading. I will disengage.
Except to look in occasionally to make sure I get the last word!
HAHAHAHA!!!!!
@Legion of Logic,
I think this will help since these folks focus on "local motion" exclusively.
Oerter on motion and the First Mover
bmiller: "You are a confused person."
When someone spews a casserole of nonsense, yes, I find it confusing.
bmiller: "You can't even remember what we discussed yesterday, or detect subtle but important differences in the way things are stated. That's not even mentioning that you don't have a grasp on how logic works."
The assessments of bmiller are not something I spend much time contemplating, fyi. You are what you show yourself to be.
bmiller: "I've stayed on the thread this long only because I noticed that Chris started reading and within several exchanges had already understood the First Way argument."
Ha.
bmiller: "Some people can't or won't try."
The argument is bad, and its defenders evince a certain, ahem, behavior. That much is evident.
bmiller: So, since I other things to do, and it looks like anyone who is interested in learning is no longer reading. I will disengage."
Yeah. You seem super busy all the time. So that makes sense.
The last word is mine.
Me: ”Um, the First Way concludes that a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move. The only way that it's premises can be non-contradictory is to take the position that things that cause things to move do not undergo any motion themselves."
Legion: “Condensing the argument to nothing but physical location movement is a strawman, and I won't engage with it. If you want to argue the First Strawman argument, say so and we will quickly agree that it is a terrible argument and then move on. “
What? If the particular part of an argument isn’t true, why would expanding it make it somehow compelling?
It’s not a strawman to point out that the premise of an argument isn’t sound. It’s called critical thinking.
You appear to be saying that while the argument isn’t sound when it’s examined using specific terminology, a fuzzier version of it does work. This is what people say when they want to deceive themselves.
Me: “Read the link I posted in my previous post last night - those of us here did not simply decide to change word definitions. But, fun thought experiment: even if Aquinas was completely wrong and only meant what you and SD are stating about physical movement (which those familiar with his and Aristotole's works would disagree with), then we would agree that they were wrong, and we would then present the argument as we are presenting it, and ask it to be refuted. Essentially, hanging up on the translation of Aquinas' argument is beside the point.”
Aquinas seemed to be wanting to take a specific example, motion, in order to talk about a broader concept, change. But if the simple version of his argument fails (his understanding of motion is wrong), then his expanded version based on the same misunderstanding can certainly fare no better.
Legion: “The premise of the First Way is that something that undergoes a change must be acted upon by something else in order for that change to occur.“
Sure. And a modern understanding of physics includes that in order to bestow motion on something a thing itself needs to be in motion? Do you disagree? If not, then you agree that the First Way is unsound. If you agree, you should do what bmiller and grod have tried so hard to run away from and hand wave and change the subject over, etc. — provide an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move.
Do you see the dilemma that the First Way presents to its proponents?
Have you ever wondered why the educated world has moved on to other explanations for how reality operates?
Legion: “And the whole point of the first mover is that if every causal agent derives its power to change something else FROM something else (in other words, if every causal agent is an actualized potential, a potential state that was made reality), then there would be no change anywhere in the system. Like links in a chain holding a heavy weight in the air, each link's ability to hold a weight in the air is entirely dependent on the very first link. If it fails, the rest immediately lose their power to lift.”
Which is not true of objects in motion. Which we’ve known since the time of Newton. So, why would you find this argument compelling if you know it’s not true for the simple example on which it tries to expand?
Btw, regarding your link, I imagine you want to say that the idea of the bear in the mirror is what the First Way is all about — that existence is like a set of reflections of a bear, that disappears when the bear goes away. Thus, existence requires a bear (god, whatever).
But no. The bear exists for a set of reasons that cascade back to the big bang. And the bear moves into the mirrors in order to cast its reflections — the bear cannot begin the reflections without moving into the mirrors, or the mirrors moving to reflect the bear. Either way, something moves to start the reflection.
So, it’s all still kind of a simple, quaint, and stilly argument. After all this. Imagine my surprise.
Last word
bmiller said...
"Liar, you have no such examples."
" Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?"
There are no such comments to support your claim. You are a liar.
Liars like you will spend many words claiming the answer is someplace else instead of just saying a few words here and now in support of the dishonest claim.
February 16, 2017 12:29 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" The premise of the First Way is that something that undergoes a change must be acted upon by something else in order for that change to occur."
No, that is not "the" premise. You are wrong about that. It is "a" premise.
" Wood can't make itself hot."
Right, a hot thing is required to make wood hot, obviously. Ice does not make wood hot. A merely existent thing does not make wood hot. Aquinas clearly tells you these things, but you just don't understand simple language.
February 16, 2017 12:30 PM
"Aquinas clearly tells you these things, but you just don't understand simple language."
Haha, says one of the two people who has no idea what he's talking about.
I'll check back periodically maybe, and will hop back in if you and Cal ever decide to comment on the First Way as understood by contemporary knowledgeable people.
Legion of Logic said...
" I'll check back periodically maybe, and will hop back in if you and Cal ever decide to comment on the First Way as understood by contemporary knowledgeable people."
Your knowledge is so limited that you do not know the difference between the words "the" and "a".
Nor can you comprehend the simple relationship that a hot thing makes wood hot.
Knowledgeable? Your reading capacity in this area does not even extend into adulthood.
February 16, 2017 9:32 PM
@Strawdusty,
Me: " Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?"
”There are no such comments to support your claim. You are a liar.”
Because you are too lazy or incompetent to look back through comments does not make me a liar. But you calling me a liar says a lot about your character.
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
bmiller said...
Me: " Please stop hyperventilating and follow the comments back. Can you not even do that?"
SP ”There are no such comments to support your claim. You are a liar.”
" Because you are too lazy or incompetent to look back through comments does not make me a liar."
You are a liar because it would be very easy for you to cite an example like a locomotive, or a chain, or whatever your idiotic idea is.
But liars like you will talk and talk and talk about how the answer is someplace else. That is a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from your fundamental lie with a further lie that the answer exists elsewhere.
" But you calling me a liar says a lot about your character."
Indeed, it shows that I am honest and observant and knowledgeable on this subject.
You are a liar. You claim to have examples where a moving thing causing motion is not the case. That is a lie. You have never provided any such examples.
You are a liar.
February 17, 2017 5:42 AM
Me: "Sure. And a modern understanding of physics includes that in order to bestow motion on something a thing itself needs to be in motion? Do you disagree? If not, then you agree that the First Way is unsound. If you agree, you should do what bmiller and grod have tried so hard to run away from and hand wave and change the subject over, etc. — provide an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move."
Legion: "I'll check back periodically maybe, and will hop back in if you and Cal ever decide to comment on the First Way as understood by contemporary knowledgeable people."
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
Apparently, defenders of the First Way do not know this. Which doesn't just mean that they are apparently fooled by an appeal to authority, but that they don't understand what an argument is, or how to think critically.
Skeptics: Tell me why you think the First Way shows that a deity must exist?
Apologists: You don't understand the argument.
Skeptics: In which way.
Apologists: In the way we're too busy to cogently explain.
Skeptics: Why can't you cogently explain it?
Apologists: Because we already have.
Skeptics: What?
And that's what these conversations have been all along. One. Big. What.
@stardusty.
How do you know that bmiller is lying?
His fingers are moving.
Wow, this exchange is still going.
Is the objection that the changeless changer ought to be an empirically observable entity?
Legion of Logic said...
SP "Aquinas clearly tells you these things, but you just don't understand simple language."
" Haha, says one of the two people who has no idea what he's talking about."
Let's ask Aquinas about "actuality", shall we?
*a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act*
*motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.*
*nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality*
*that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it."
Somehow, all the theists here have concluded from these statements that "actuality" means "existence". That is a stunningly stupid thing to conclude. Only a person suffering from a sort of mental retardation could even say something that asinine.
A thing moves because it exists? How stupid. What an idiotic and pointless statement that becomes.
Motion is reduction from potentiality to existence? Even more stupid. Word salad. Gibberish of the mentally deranged.
Clearly, Aquinas is referring to a state of actual motion, not a mere state of existence.
Only a thing in actuality causes something else to move to actuality. Aquinas clarifies this even further by example, actually hot causes actually hot. Heat is literally motion. You do know that, right?
Every theist on this site who has commented on the meaning of "actuality" is at best selectively mentally retarded. In the case of bmiller he or she is also a blatant liar.
February 16, 2017 9:32 PM
Chris said...
" Wow, this exchange is still going.
Is the objection that the changeless changer ought to be an empirically observable entity?"
That is another subject, and a very interesting one.
But no, the objection at the moment is that bmiller claimed to have in his possession an example of a thing being caused to move by a thing that was not itself in motion. For most people that would simply be a misunderstanding. Given the number of times bmiller has repeated this and dodged providing this supposed example bmiller is clearly a liar.
A further objection is the absurd definition of "actuality" as a mere "existence". Please see my comments of February 17, 2017 9:31 AM for a very brief explanation as to the absurdity of that definition.
The simple truth is that no human being has solved the problem of the origin of existence and published that solution into general circulation. Not you, not me, not Aquinas, not Craig, not Hawking, not Krauss, and not any of the folks here.
All attempts at a solution lead to logical absurdities, yet an existence is absolutely certain. Clearly, the fault is in ourselves.
February 17, 2017 9:16 AM
Speaking as an AT novice, I am not clear as to why that is relevant. As I understand it, one of the premises is that whatever changes must be changed by something else.
Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on.
@Strawdusty,
”You are a liar. You claim to have examples where a moving thing causing motion is not the case. That is a lie. You have never provided any such examples.
You are a liar.”
Well, I’m not surprised that you think this way given that you’ve abandoned rational thought. For a rational person to reach the conclusion that another person is lying one would have to know:
1) The truth of the matter
2) Proof that the accused knew the truth of the matter
3) Proof that the accused denied the truth of the matter while knowing the truth of the matter.
First of all I know the truth of the matter and am speaking the truth. You apparently are not capable of reading past comments to find out the truth of the matter. I want you to learn how to do that.
I consider it superior to teach a man to fish rather than to give him a fish. I’ve seen some people, that when given a fish, insist it’s a cat and then stick it in their ear. Sort of like your bizarre misreading of the First Way.
But since you apparently feel no obligation to respond to this:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
Why should I give you a fish?
Chris said...
" Speaking as an AT novice, I am not clear as to why that is relevant. As I understand it, one of the premises is that whatever changes must be changed by something else."
Yes, that is one of the premises. LL called it "the" premise. In this case the self described novice understands the obvious truth, while the alleged experienced apologist has his head in the sand.
You have the clarity of the young, the emperor has no clothes.
I suggest you appreciate the intelligence and efforts of the ancients but not their arguments. Aristotle and Aquinas were wrong. If you want to learn truth then be willing to understand how they were wrong and build upon all knowledge and understanding accumulated in the many centuries since ancient times.
I suggest you abandon the language of the ancients. Instead focus on modern scientific study of the nature of causality.
John S. Bell would be one good place for you to start.
February 17, 2017 10:42 AM
@Chris,
"Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
Let me know if you have any questions in this area. "The Last Superstition" and "Aquinas" by Edward Feser are good books, but just by searching his blog, you can help your understanding tremendously.
Ignore the atheist bloviating. It's easy to see they are frightened.
bmiller said...
" First of all I know the truth of the matter and am speaking the truth. You apparently are not capable of reading past comments to find out the truth of the matter. "
No such comments exist. I have already read them all. None include any examples of a motionless thing causing motion. If you dispute this then simply paste the alleged text here, until such time...
You are a liar.
February 17, 2017 11:40 AM
Chris said...
" Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
You won't get much out of AT beyond a lesson in how mistaken highly intelligent people can be when they lack the benefit of scientific understanding.
In short, the very notion of cause and effect is highly dubious. We perceive causes and effects at our macro level but those are approximations and illusions. In truth the underlying reality is a seething cauldron of everything being in motion and being mutual causes and effects of each other in a vastly complicated temporal process.
If you really want to learn about causality here is the sort of thing to study
John S. Bell’s concept of local causality
http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
February 17, 2017 10:57 AM
@Stardusty,
”No such comments exist. I have already read them all. None include any examples of a motionless thing causing motion. If you dispute this then simply paste the alleged text here, until such time...
You are a liar.”
I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
bmiller: "I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:"
Yeah. Because when people have the answers, do you know what they ALWAYS DO.
Delay, lie, and incriminate. That's how you know they have the goods.
What a pathetic liar you are.
Chris: "Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
It's interesting from a historical standpoint. It's not interesting from a "make-sense-of-the-world" standpoint. And that's because the language is muddled, and in some cases it's just flat out wrong. It's wrong about fundamental physics. Not only does AT physics know nothing of the atomic and subatomic world, it is wrong about classical physics as well -- an object in motion does not need a force to remain in motion.
The reason AT metaphysics isn't taught outside of historical explanation is because it's wrong about how reality operates. Apologists like to pretend that this is not the case, but the only ones they can convince are other apologists, and the aggressively gullible.
Chris: "Speaking as an AT novice, I am not clear as to why that is relevant. As I understand it, one of the premises is that whatever changes must be changed by something else."
Indeed you are correct. As we have been pointing out for a thousand posts now, the objections raised thus far are firing all over the place and have yet to even strike the wall that the target is mounted on.
"Something that does seem to be relevant to this discussion is AT metaphysics, especially formal and final causes- which I'm just getting a handle on."
This is also correct. An understanding of the beliefs of Aristotle and Aquinas is crucial in understanding the First Way as intended, since as we have pointed out, the argument is one part of a much larger body of work, and one cannot base their entire understanding of AT philosophy on just the First Way, let alone the First Strawman. Those who do...well, First Strawman.
As bmiller said above, Feser is an excellent resource.
bmiller said...
SP ”No such comments exist. I have already read them all. None include any examples of a motionless thing causing motion. If you dispute this then simply paste the alleged text here, until such time...
You are a liar.”
" I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:"
Liar, no such link exists. Lots of links exist to long disjointed ramblings by kooks and charlatans.
No links exist to a simple example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing.
You are a liar to suggest otherwise.
February 17, 2017 12:10 PM
Legion: "As we have been pointing out for a thousand posts now, the objections raised thus far are firing all over the place and have yet to even strike the wall that the target is mounted on."
Nope. Our comments have been relevant throughout. The apologists here are just incapable of understanding them, or are deluded, or are dishonest. Most likely the mind of the apologist can't grasp the idea that a god might not exist, and their thinking on this topic is stunted from this difficulty. Sic.
Just look at Legion's ignoring my question to him (above):
Me: "...a modern understanding of physics includes that in order to bestow motion on something a thing itself needs to be in motion? Do you disagree? If not, then you agree that the First Way is unsound. If you agree, you should do what bmiller and grod have tried so hard to run away from and hand wave and change the subject over, etc. — provide an example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move."
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
Here's what I think: I think that when an apologist sees that a line of reasoning (an argument) threatens his belief in a god, he begins to act irrationally. Also, and this seems to be unavoidable, he begins to act quite shabbily -- impugning, incriminating, acting hypocritically, etc. I have yet to come across an exception to this. As further evidence, I point to this post, and the contribution of its apologist commenters.
I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument.
The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism.
Chris said...
" I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument."
Motion is physics. Heat is physics. Sorry Chris, you can't have it both ways.
The First Way is an argument for god from physics, the physics of motion and heat (which is a form of motion)
" The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism."
If you want to say there is some superstuff out that that can violate logic and physics that is not an argument, rather, pure speculation.
You won't get any closer to truth by holding on to bad arguments and pre-scientific language. There is nothing of value in AT in discovering how reality operates. The only value of AT is in discovering how the human mind can be deceived, or perhaps, deceive itself.
February 17, 2017 3:24 PM
Chris: "I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument."
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
Chris: "The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism."
What is the argument FOR a commitment to muddled language, primitive descriptions, ignorance, and denial and/or dismissiveness of evidence?
Is there a good argument for that?
Plainly and simply stated, which premise(s) of the First Way are false and why?
Chris,
Bmiller and I have recommended Feser previously. Here he addresses the alleged conflict between Newton and Aquinas. I found it very useful, you might as well.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/06/oerter-on-motion-and-first-mover.html?m=1
http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf
@Strawdusty,
Me:" I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:"
Strawdusty”Liar, no such link exists. Lots of links exist to long disjointed ramblings by kooks and charlatans.
No links exist to a simple example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing.
You are a liar to suggest otherwise.”
Well, this is just one more thing that you have provided no evidence for. You call me a liar, so you must have some proof that you know what I think. Where is that proof?
But:In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
You’ve had adequate time now to provide your evidence, so here we are finally. Your silence is your answer. You’ve agreed that science and logic conforms to the First Way.
@Chris,
"I think the problem here is that there might be a confusion between physics and metaphysics. The First Way is a metaphysical argument.
The critics seem to harbor an unargued for commitment to scientific materialism.
While it is true that the critics are materialists, there is no conflict between the metaphysics of the First Way and any the philosophical underpinnings of any version of modern physics.
Chris said...
" Plainly and simply stated, which premise(s) of the First Way are false and why?"
Perhaps most egregious is the very last line. Ordinarily one does not place a premise at the very end. The conclusion "therefor god exists" is implied in the premise "and this everyone understands to be God."
Perhaps if Aquinas had been addressing a room full of fellow Christians that premise would have been true. As an argument in the 21st century that premise is false, since I am part of "everyone" and I do not understand "this...to be god".
The argument is so badly written that the intent of the the argument, to argue for the existence of god based on the physics of motion, is not even explicitly stated as such at the end, but the wording of his final premise clearly indicates his intent to also state the conclusion "therefore god exists".
Earlier in the argument Aquinas uses the language of "potential" and "actual". These are hopelessly archaic and pre-scientific notions. If you wish to become an expert in these notions you might also wish to become an expert in alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and phlogiston. If you want to be exposed to scientific terminology in serious modern discussions of causality I suggest you start here:
http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
You will note that AT terminology is not employed in any serious modern discussion of causality.
Elsewhere Aquinas asserts:
But (causes of motion being themselves in motion) cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover.
Which is blatant begging the question as well as an ad hoc assertion and merely stating the problem that nobody has a solution to. So, this part of the argument is also simply terrible.
Focus on the word "because". Aquinas states a conclusion in a premise!!! You can't get much worse than that in an argument.
Also, conservation tells us that stuff has indeed existed for infinity, yet that is irrational to the human brain, as is a first mover, or any other attempt to solve this ancient riddle of the origin of existence.
Aquinas does noting, certainly, to solve this problem and only present a truly terrible "argument" that fails immediately. A special sort of blindness is required to see any merit whatsoever in the twisted and pathetic "argument" that is the First Way.
February 17, 2017 7:34 PM
Blogger bmiller said...
Me:" I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:"
Strawdusty”Liar, no such link exists. Lots of links exist to long disjointed ramblings by kooks and charlatans.
No links exist to a simple example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing.
You are a liar to suggest otherwise.”
Well, this is just one more thing that you have provided no evidence for. You call me a liar, so you must have some proof that you know what I think."
Your words. You lie.
You are a liar. You claim to have something you do not have and cannot produce.
You are a liar.
You claim to have already named something that causes motion but is not itself moving. That is a lie. You never named any such thing.
Send the link or you are a liar.
February 17, 2017 8:01 PM
@Strawdusty,
"...lie...liar...liar...lie...liar..."
You really think that you are a mind reader then. How sad.
I am sorry that my request to back up your bloviating with actual evidence has caused you to become unhinged. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself and I feel sorry for you.
Perhaps you should take a break to calm down.
bmiller said...
"...lie...liar...liar...lie...liar..."
" Please stop. "
You said that previous posts contain examples of a thing that causes motion that is not itself moving.
That is a lie.
You are a liar.
I will stop when you do one of two things.
1. Produce those supposed previous posts.
2. Develop the integrity to admit you were wrong and lacked the personal fortitude to admit it.
Until then...
You are a liar.
February 17, 2017 8:38 PM
SP,
As I said, I am not sure if the argument succeeds. But, respectfully, the objections that you cite don't seem to have much bite. For example, I don't think that the argument is about the "physics of motion". Aquinas, I think, is simply providing an empirical example of change that wouldn't be controversial. I interpret him as saying "Things change." Vis a via AT terminology, like act and potency, again there is nothing there that strikes me as obscure. Things are this and they have the potential to be that. That is, things change. You then go on to say that "stuff has existed for infinity", but then go to say that that is irrational. Do me a favor, just go easy on the attack mode- I am just trying to understand.
Chris said...
SP,
" As I said, I am not sure if the argument succeeds. But, respectfully, the objections that you cite don't seem to have much bite. For example, I don't think that the argument is about the "physics of motion"."
Motion is a subject of physics. Observations of how things move and what causes motion are arguments from physics. Motion is inseparable from physics.
The First Way is an argument for god from motion. The First Way is necessarily a physics argument because it uses as it premises the physics of motion. Here are some premises of the physics of motion that Aquinas uses:
Something moves.
A thing that moves is moved by another thing.
Nothing moves itself.
Only a moving thing causes motion.
" Aquinas, I think, is simply providing an empirical example of change that wouldn't be controversial."
Indeed. The above premises are self evident at our ordinary level of observation. Only a special sort of stubborn fool would deny any of them as ordinary observational facts, so Aquinas very reasonably started with those uncontroversial observational facts of the physics of motion.
" I interpret him as saying "Things change." "
Right, but that is a rather pedestrian observation by itself. One does not reasonable argue for god from such a simple statement alone.
"Vis a via AT terminology, like act and potency, again there is nothing there that strikes me as obscure. Things are this and they have the potential to be that. That is, things change."
Ok, you can make those very generalized statements if you wish, but they do no constitute a valuable argument.
" You then go on to say that "stuff has existed for infinity", but then go to say that that is irrational."
Close, but not precisely what I said. Conservation tells us stuff has existed for infinity. Clearly, the fault is in ourselves.
There is a clear conflict between what we observe and what we can conceive of rationally. All human beings who have ever lived, myself included, have failed to solve this problem and publish the solution into general circulation. Given how many have tried, it seems reasonable to assert that the human brain has thus far proved itself inadequate to the task of rationalizing reality.
" Do me a favor, just go easy on the attack mode- I am just trying to understand."
You have not lied to me that I am able to detect. Typically people come to discussion forum to discuss things. But some people, when confronted with a clear error on their part will lie. That happened with bmiller. He just could not cope with being called out on a falsehood he stated so he doubled down, tripled down, attempted diversion, attempted to say the answer was someplace else, and used all the techniques of a liar. Why that individual would degrade himself or herself in that way is anybody's guess.
I provided a link above I think might be helpful, but of course, there are many ways to learn about causality. The First Way is not one of them, except for its historical value and the insight it provides us how the ancients attempted to make sense of the world lacking the benefits of modern science, and what that implies for the thinking of those in modern times who either reject or are not educated in science.
February 18, 2017 9:08 AM
bmiller continues to lie.
bmiller seems to think that because no one can know what another person thinks, no one can ever be called a liar.
But that is not the standard for lying.
The standard for lying is: to knowingly say something that isn't true.
bmiller continues to maintain that he can cite an example (from the comments here) where a motionless thing moves something else, but he refuses to do so.
bmiller knows that he cannot cite what he claimed he could, and instead of admitting this, he tries do divert from this fact. bmiller has said something that isn't true, and he knows that he cannot cite the example that he claimed he could. This is the standard for lying.
bmiller is, thus, a liar.
What kind of argument is best supported by liars?
Are those usually good arguments, or are they usually bad arguments?
Chris: "Plainly and simply stated, which premise(s) of the First Way are false and why?"
I'd start with the one that the apologists are arguing for now -- that a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
That's how the apologists here now say the premise should be understood, and it is false.
grod had said earlier that the gravitational pull of a star moves a planet, but as i pointed out, gravity is a force that affects the path of the planet, but is not the force that set the planet in motion. grod had said earlier that the movement of an electron is affected by the position of other particles, but this is irrelevant -- particles move because the position of other particles causes them to move. So, neither example shows how a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
The reason the apologists here have chosen to defend a false premise is because it is easier to obfuscate over this problem than the more obvious one a different (and frankly, better) reading of Aquinas's argument makes -- that only a thing in motion can cause another thing to move. But choosing this interpretation of the premise makes the argument more awkward to defend, because it is so easy to see how this premise contradicts the argument's conclusion.
And that is why we are treated to the bickering and squabbling (and in bmiller's case, transparent lying) over this variation of the argument's defense.
Blogger Cal Metzger said...
" grod had said earlier that the gravitational pull of a star moves a planet,"
Is that what these theists are on about? The star also moves. The star is not motionless. The motion of the star is in fact how astronomers detect extrasolar planets. Obviously, a star/planet system is not an example of a motionless thing causing motion in something else.
" grod had said earlier that the movement of an electron is affected by the position of other particles,"
Particles affect each other and they are all moving and they are all mutually causes and effects of the motions of each other in a complex temporal system of motion and forces. (I assume the discussion was about some sort of N body system of various sorts of particles).
Aren't you theists out there typically Christians? Every heard of a thing called bearing false witness? Wouldn't it be better to deal with physical reality in an honest discussion as opposed to just making up demonstrably false nonsense?
February 18, 2017 10:57 AM
Stardusty: "Aren't you theists out there typically Christians? Every heard of a thing called bearing false witness? Wouldn't it be better to deal with physical reality in an honest discussion as opposed to just making up demonstrably false nonsense?"
In my experience I've found that apologists, and the virtues nominally associated with being Christian, to be almost entirely exclusive of one another.
@Strawdusty,
I will stop when you do one of two things.
1. Produce those supposed previous posts.
2. Develop the integrity to admit you were wrong and lacked the personal fortitude to admit it.
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
I’ve offered to show you the comment after you produced the evidence I asked for. None of your responses do so much as acknowledge the request. Now follow your own conditions
1. Produce the evidence I asked for
2. Or admit that you are wrong and there is none. (which is actually the case)
It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you consider name calling a rational alternative to actually thinking. It rather proves my point that atheists are not rational.
As soon as you provide 1 or 2 we can proceed. But each time I check back I see you have absolutely no intention of even acknowledging the responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. So I’ll be checking back less frequently.
@Chris,
You can probably tell by now that the atheists cannot even accurately read back the premises of the First Way. It's quite remarkable. I can't tell if it's intentional, but it's at least some sort of cognitive dissonance.
"grod had said earlier that the gravitational pull of a star moves a planet, but as i pointed out, gravity is a force that affects the path of the planet, but is not the force that set the planet in motion. grod had said earlier that the movement of an electron is affected by the position of other particles, but this is irrelevant -- particles move because the position of other particles causes them to move."
What Mr. Metzger said was and I quote:
"this argument still has the other problems I've pointed out -- that it doesn't relate to what we observe happening with real objects here in reality, where something doesn't magically move something else without itself having momentum (which means it is moving)."
This is what I responded to. The claim here is that: "something doesn't magically move something else without itself having momentum (which means it is moving)". Let us take my second example. An electron moving uniformly. In its proper inertial rest frame, it has 0 momentum (= it is at rest). Because once again, and unknown to the pair of buffoons that think they know physics, momentum is not an invariant quantity but depends on the reference frame, and consequently, being at rest or in (uniform) motion is also not an absolute notion and depends on the reference frame. But the electron does move other particles, because moving other particles is just a matter of generating the proper fields (gravitational field for mass, electromagnetic field for charge, etc.) which of course the electron does. It could be the force that sets something else in motion (it suffices that said motionless particle is acted by the field generated by the electron -- although strictly speaking, in the classical case both the electromagnetic and gravitational field have infinite range) or it could simply change its motion. It still counts as change; the distinction of the two cases is completely spurious as far as physics go. But then all this is completely irrelevant to the First Way as well. But then, here we have a counter-example to what Mr. Metzger asserted, something that every first-year physics student knows. Period, end of story.
Now the basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit can spin the story any way they think fit, and ask for a motionless thing that sets in motion another motionless thing, presumably not via gravity but by some other means (maybe magical woo?), for some reason completely irrelevant to the First Way and that only they in the vacuum of their skulls know, or whatever other crap they pull out of their asses, accuse everyone else of lying, of "patent ignorance", etc. This comment here is just to disabuse any possible lurker insane enough and with nothing better to do than reading their inane drivel. The two idiots are beyond any possible rational discourse and belong to an asylum for the mentally retarded.
@grodrigues,
I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-)
After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't.
bmiller said...
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do "
Then stop flapping your lying jaw and post it, liar.
February 18, 2017 2:31 PM
bmiller: “I’ve offered to show you the comment after you produced the evidence I asked for. None of your responses do so much as acknowledge the request. Now follow your own conditions / 1. Produce the evidence I asked for / 2. Or admit that you are wrong and there is none. (which is actually the case)”
Nope. Stardusty’s conditions were to cite an example for what you already claimed had occurred.
Your condition is to satisfy some arbitrary requirement that you now demand, and I have no doubt that no matter what is provided you will say it is somehow insufficient to satisfy your demands and use that as your excuse to pretend that you have not been caught in a lie.
You are a bad liar.
Discussion isn’t possible when one side lies, and then refuses to remedy the lie.
bmiiler: “It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you consider name calling a rational alternative to actually thinking. It rather proves my point that atheists are not rational.”
Skeptics like Stardusty and I are not rational and are name-calling here? Yeah, that’s what’s going on. Look at grod here, just in one comment:
grod: “…pair of buffoons ….basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit…in the vacuum of their skulls know, or whatever other crap they pull out of their asses… two idiots….belong to an asylum for the mentally retarded.”
Yeah, irrationality and name calling are the what the skeptics here have brought, not the apologists. At least you avoided projecting the lying onto us as as well.
bmiller: “As soon as you provide 1 or 2 we can proceed. But each time I check back I see you have absolutely no intention of even acknowledging the responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. So I’ll be checking back less frequently.”
Stardusty hasn’t lied, and refused to provide an example that he says would disprove his lie.
That’s all on you.
Do you think it makes the First Way look like a valid argument, that rather than recognize its problems, its defenders are reduced to a state where all they seem to be able to do is insult and lie?
grodrigues said...
" An electron moving uniformly. In its proper inertial rest frame, it has 0 momentum (= it is at rest). "
A moving electron is at rest. Brilliant.
"being at rest or in (uniform) motion is also not an absolute notion and depends on the reference frame. "
Congratulations, you have defined 1 electron in the universe to be perpetually at rest no matter what forces are applied to it because you have arbitrarily defined it to be the center of its own reference frame. How idiotic.
"But the electron does move other particles, because moving other particles is just a matter of generating the proper fields (gravitational field for mass, electromagnetic field for charge, etc.) which of course the electron does."
No, there is a great deal more to solving an N body problem than that.
" But then all this is completely irrelevant to the First Way as well. "
Indeed, because Aquinas was familiar with ordinary objects, like a rock, or staff, or a cart. Clearly, only an apparently moving thing causes an apparently stationary thing to move. Aquinas was smart enough to put these simple observational facts, as we perceive them in common objects, into simple words that the theists here have managed to me mightily confused by.
"But then, here we have a counter-example to what Mr. Metzger asserted, something that every first-year physics student knows. Period, end of story."
How absurd. You arbitrarily select a set of conditions in an N body problem to start at some arbitrary time and select some particular unique and arbitrary frame of reference and call your example shown. How absurd.
How did your "motionless" electron arrive at its "stationary" position? Has it been there for all time. just sitting in that one place perfectly still? Do you suppose that your "motionless" electron remains motionless while exerting forces on other particles, like some immovable celestial anchor?
In truth, your first year physics student understands that there are no particles at rest relative to other particles. All particles are in motion. They are all influencing each other continuously due to the mutual influence of their fields and are the continuous causes and effects of each other in a mutual temporal process of vast complexity.
" Now the basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit can spin the story any way they think fit, "
Ok, I hereby spin your silly simplistic nonsense into the dustbin where it belongs.
"and ask for a motionless thing that sets in motion another motionless thing, presumably not via gravity but by some other means (maybe magical woo?),"
The theists are the ones asserting the magic woo! I am glad you finally realize that is what this silly notion of some thing motionless moving something else is.
" accuse everyone else of lying,"
I accuse bmiller of lying, not merely of being wrong, because he refuses to produce that which he claims, and he employs the diversionary tactics of a liar, expending many words dodging when just a few would be required to answer truthfully.
February 18, 2017 3:23 PM
bmiller said...
" I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-)
After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't."
Indeed, I have been reading along, and no such post exits, liar.
But by all means, prove me wrong, a simple link to the blog post in question will do.
February 18, 2017 4:28 PM
Stardusty Psyche said...
bmiller said...
" I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-)"
No, G is not a liar, just badly confused and cursing like a grumpy old man spewing nonsense.
G at least had the integrity to simply lay his case out in plain language, He didn't try to present me with a dozen dodges. G is not a liar here, just badly mistaken.
February 18, 2017 4:28 PM
grod: "Now the basement-dwelling pieces of intellectual shit can spin the story any way they think fit, and ask for a motionless thing that sets in motion another motionless thing, presumably not via gravity but by some other means (maybe magical woo?)..."
This is the point where bmiller should realize that not even grod's rantings are considered by grod to provide the example for a motionless things causing another motionless thing to move.
I predict that bmiller will be super busy now. Very little time to come back here, and figure out some way to show he's not a liar. Or try to salvage the notion that he understands basic high school (middle school?) physics.
Let this be a lesson, kids. Lying just leads to trouble.
@Strawdusty,
Your misquote:
bmiller said...
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do "
Your ironic challenge:
Then stop flapping your lying jaw and post it, liar.
What I actually posted:
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
So it doesn’t really help your credibility to accuse others of lying in the same comment where you misquote them. So either you can’t read or you are ...what?
But why don’t you post the comment yourself? Can you not navigate the comment section? Is this really too subtle for you?
”I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me whenI referenced to your post.:-)
After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't.”
But again:
In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
Blogger bmiller said...
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do "
Ok, howzabout you stop effing around and just post it then?
February 18, 2017 10:11 PM
SD,
I don't truly care about the "who's a liar" conversation per se, but it is highly dishonest of you to quote him as saying
"I’d rather just post the link which I will do"
When what he said was
"I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence"
That's extremely dishonest of you, to the point that you have zero credibility of accusing anyone of lying. If you persist in doing so, congratulations you're a liar.
It doesn't matter who goes first, but liars should not accuse others of lying.
"Congratulations, you have defined 1 electron in the universe to be perpetually at rest no matter what forces are applied to it because you have arbitrarily defined it to be the center of its own reference frame. How idiotic."
So let us consult the wikipedia, that universal fount of wisdom. On Rest Frame it has as first sentence:
"In special relativity the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest."
By the way, there is nothing special about SR here. The notion makes sense in Newtonian physics or GR or whatever. As I said, "momentum is not an invariant quantity but depends on the reference frame, and consequently, being at rest or in (uniform) motion is also not an absolute notion and depends on the reference frame". On the entry Frame of Reference it uses the following example:
"In contrast to the inertial frame, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which fictitious forces must be invoked to explain observations. An example is an observational frame of reference centered at a point on the Earth's surface. This frame of reference orbits around the center of the Earth, which introduces the fictitious forces known as the Coriolis force, centrifugal force, and gravitational force. (All of these forces including gravity disappear in a truly inertial reference frame, which is one of free-fall.)"
As the reader can readily observe, I set my electron at uniform motion -- and this is the reason, to have an inertial frame and do not have to muck up with "fictitious forces" to explain the observations. I should add that the quoted observation of Stardusty is also the beginning of the General Relativity. There is an extremely famous thought experiment that virtually all books on GR use to show the local equivalence of a gravitational field and acceleration, which once again, employs a rest frame. Now, predictably Stardusty being an ignorant moron with the IQ of a fence post, does not know anything about this.
At any rate, the physics lesson is over and I do not have the wish or patience to go over the other abysmally ignorant crap that he clogged the comment box with. I am sure Dumb and Dumber will want to have the last last word and I happily give them (I should have done this long long ago; apologies to everyone, Stardusty and Mr. Metzger included, for contributing to what is in essence a pointless discussion).
Legion: "It doesn't matter who goes first, but liars should not accuse others of lying."
Nice try at buying the lies of a liar. But by doing so you just make yourself seem like a dupe, or easy mark.
PRIOR to what bmiller quoted in his vapid portrayal, he claimed:
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, AND YOU GIVE HIM EXPLICIT EXAMPLES WHERE THIS IS NOT THE CASE but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
That is the lie. There had been no specific examples offered showing how a motionless thing causes some other motionless thing to move. I suspect bmiller saw what he thought was some prior physic-y talk from grod and didn't understand it and couldn't recognize why it wasn't relevant but his hopes got ahead of his apprehension and he made a false claim. Which his repeated efforts since have shown to be a lie.
Everything else that has followed has been the most obvious delaying and attempts to divert from bmiller that only a genuine dupe could buy it. Really, do you think that vouching for a transparent liar makes you look intelligent?
But then again, the comments of apologists still have the capacity to surprise me.
------
bmiller's tactic above is common among apologists (and propagandists as well, with which they have much in common). By repeating a lie, they establish a foothold for their falsehoods. When challenged, rather than establish their lie as a fact, they simply repeat it. Think Joe McCarthy. Think Donald Trump. This is the tactic they often use.
Sadly, this tactic can be effective -- it's been studied in psychology (it's related to framing).
But educated people should be able to recognize it, as well as follow an argument.
But I do agree with you that too few people can. Sic.
Grod: "By the way, there is nothing special about SR here....At any rate, the physics lesson is over and I do not have the wish or patience to go over the other abysmally ignorant crap that he clogged the comment box with."
And the point is....?
The best I can figure is that you are trying to say that the study of physics itself is an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? But that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? The study of physics is the attempt to describe and explain real things as they behave in space and time. The study of physics does not produce the magical example of a real motionless thing causing another real motionless thing to move; it produces the study of physics.
Because this is all in reference to the First Way, and our observation that motionless things don't cause other motionless things to move. You understand that much, right?
Legion: "I don't truly care about the "who's a liar" conversation per se, but it is highly dishonest of you to quote him as saying / "I’d rather just post the link which I will do" / When what he said was / "I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence" / That's extremely dishonest of you, to the point that you have zero credibility of accusing anyone of lying. If you persist in doing so, congratulations you're a liar. "
Stardusty posted the full sentence multiple times prior. This is an ongoing conversation, with the reference comments stacked in close proximity.
If you're so confident that bmiller's lies and Stardusty's characterizations are somehow equivalent, why don't you ask bmiller to provide the example he's been claiming was cited earlier? Wouldn't that be the ultimate zinger for you and bmiller? I wonder why you would refrain from doing so. Do you realize that any rational person can easily see that the failure for bmiller to, at long last (the suspense is killing me! It's going to be HUGE!!!!! now after all this, trust me!) provide his gotcha example is that he's actually just been caught in a lie and he can't figure out a way out?
What would it expose about your critical thinking skills if bmiller persists in his lies, and you go on to find them credible?
Do you think it would make you seem like a rational person and critical thinker, or do you think it would make you seem irrational, and easily duped?
@Strawdusty,
Your now objectively intentional misquote of me:
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do "
My actual quote:
Me:” I’d rather just post the link which I will do once you give us this evidence:”
I think this settles the character issue wrt Strawdusty.
”Ok, howzabout you stop effing around and just post it then?
Well the first reason is because you have not provided the evidence I asked for nor have you acknowledged that you cannot.
The second reason is because throughout all these comments wrt the First Way, I have patiently reposted comments, added links to comments, rephrased things multiple times and in excruciatingly fine detail only to have the atheists here either ignore the posts or forget them. I’ve decided I’m done with that. If you cannot find the comment of mine that you criticized, read it and understand what I was talking about and who I was addressing and for what reason, it seems you either do not know how to navigate, or have low reading comprehension skill.
The third reason, is I have provided not-so-subtle clues to what I was referring to in order to assess your capability. Most recently here:
”Is this really too subtle for you?
”I'm sure they will call you a liar just like me when I referenced to your post.:-)
After all Stardusty knows that your post doesn't exist, so it mustn't.”
I have to conclude that you have very low problem solving capability if you cannot put 2 and 2 together. So there’s not really much point discussing things that are beyond your opponent’s capability.
In any case, grodrigues has demonstrated (unsurprisingly) that you don’t understand physics. So it’s pretty obvious why you cannot provide the evidence you were asked to provide.
Since you’re unresponsive, I will disengage with you also. Except of course to make sure I have the last word. :-)
While the subject of irrationality, and in particular the role morality plays in establishing a rational framework (think: consistency, detachment, escaping narcissism to employ intersubjectivity, and biases, etc.) is always interesting, I'm still waiting to see if there's disagreement about these two questions:
Do you understand that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument?
Do you understand that a conclusion that contradicts one of its premises is a bad argument?
bmiller: "I think this settles the character issue wrt Strawdusty."
No. You made a false claim, and then lied about it.
Stardusty quoted you entirely, and after some time quoted you partially. He never misquoted you (which would have meant changing what you wrote, and attributing that to you).
You are just a liar.
bmiller; "Well the first reason is because you have not provided the evidence I asked for nor have you acknowledged that you cannot."
Apathetic attempt to invent an arbitrary excuse to not be caught doubling down in a lie. You fool no one.
bmiller: "If you cannot find the comment of mine that you criticized, read it and understand what I was talking about and who I was addressing and for what reason, it seems you either do not know how to navigate, or have low reading comprehension skill."
You can't find the comment you are referring to because it doesn't exist. You are a liar.
bmiller: "In any case, grodrigues has demonstrated (unsurprisingly) that you don’t understand physics."
This from someone who has already demonstrated that he doesn't know enough to pass high school (middle school?) physics.
If I were an apologist, I would do everything I could to disassociate myself from someone as tawdry and stupid as you make yourself appear to be. You make the enterprise of apologetics the transparent hucksterism that better apologists disguise with sophistry.
Congratulations. You are the worst.
I can't help but draw the parallel between apologetics in general and bmiller's antics here.
Apologetics survives as an enterprise by implying that the rational reasons for believing are out there, but never gets around to presenting them in careful detail; supposedly, the real reasons, the good reasons, are always somewhere else, cited in a way sufficiently vague as to avoid real scrutiny. If scrutiny is allowed, and the reasoning shown to be fallacious, apologetics responds by moving the goalpost to another new vague set of "real" reasons. And the whack-a-mole game is carried on ad infinitum.
On the same level, bmiller's silly lie (that a prior example was given for a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move) rests on the same framework -- he knows that the example he alluded to isn't what he characterized it to be, so better off to remain vague and insist without citing anything that can be scrutinized. And the other apologists, knowing that their broader ruse depends on this tactic, defend the behavior. If bmiller's silly lie is exposed for what it is, then how does that reflect on them?
Better, apparently, to pretend to be right, than to act rationally and morally and risk embarrassment or discomfort. That is the sad thing we learn from these encounters.
Which is why bmiller resists revealing this now famous, nail-in-the-coffin prior example that will flip the charges once and for all! -- the prior example that bmiller avows will show us how a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move! Because if bmiller were to finally do that, his little game will be exposed, like all of apologetics, for the transparent chicanery it is.
grodrigues said...
SP "Congratulations, you have defined 1 electron in the universe to be perpetually at rest no matter what forces are applied to it because you have arbitrarily defined it to be the center of its own reference frame. How idiotic."
So let us consult the wikipedia, that universal fount of wisdom. On Rest Frame it has as first sentence:
"In special relativity the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest."
So what? Yes, it is possible to define 1 particle as being at rest. That's what I said you did, define 1 electron in the universe as being at rest. That is your argument for a thing at rest causing a moving thing to move? How pathetic.
So, out of some 10^80 electrons in the observable universe you arbitrarily pick 1, ignore its motion relative to all the rest, and arbitrarily define that particular electron as being at rest, and no matter what forces act upon it that unique electron remains at rest. That special electron becomes the magic electron that is never accelerated by a force acting upon it because you have literally defined it as the center of the universe.
What an incredibly stupid way to try to bolster an obvious misreading of the First Way.
Ok, physics genius, Aquinas did not define a rest frame for an electron. He was speaking of ordinary objects, such as wood. In ordinary observations people tend to implicitly use the Earth as their reference frame. A flame is moving relative to the Earth, wood appears stationary, until the moving flame sets it on fire, which causes the wood to burn, and thus move.
A moving thing makes a stationary thing move, according to Aquinas, and that observation is very reasonable at our ordinary level of perception.
February 19, 2017 6:24 AM
"Apologetics survives as an enterprise by implying that the rational reasons for believing are out there, but never gets around to presenting them in careful detail; supposedly, the real reasons, the good reasons, are always somewhere else, cited in a way sufficiently vague as to avoid real scrutiny."
Projection.
"If scrutiny is allowed, and the reasoning shown to be fallacious, apologetics responds by moving the goalpost to another new vague set of "real" reasons. And the whack-a-mole game is carried on ad infinitum."
Atheists are the ones who move the goalposts all over the place, hiding behind the cowardly "I merely lack belief" lie.
"On the same level, bmiller's silly lie (that a prior example was given for a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move) rests on the same framework -- he knows that the example he alluded to isn't what he characterized it to be, so better off to remain vague and insist without citing anything that can be scrutinized."
Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples. Suddenly we have atheists claiming that Bmiller KNOWS those are bad examples, that he KNOWS they don't prove some point or other, presumably because some atheists disagree, and atheists have such a track record at being reasonable. And since he KNOWS that he is wrong in those examples, because atheists said so, yet he persists in saying that examples were given despite atheists disagreeing, well then by golly he must be LYING.
Of course, a far more rational interpretation of the evidence is grod posted the examples, bmiller agreed, atheists disagreed, bmiller was not impressed that the atheists disagreed and said that examples had been given, atheists can't fathom anyone disagreeing with them without being stupid or brainwashed or lying so they accuse him falsely of lying when he clearly didn't (lie being intentional deceit, which has not been established even in part), and now atheists are flapping their arms and crying and going off on rants against people who dare to disagree with them.
Incoming disagreement with illustration of how that is like apologists in general in three...two...
Legion: "Atheists are the ones who move the goalposts all over the place, hiding behind the cowardly "I merely lack belief" lie."
Then I don't think you know what it means to move the goalposts.
Legion: "Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples. Suddenly we have atheists claiming that Bmiller KNOWS those are bad examples, that he KNOWS they don't prove some point or other, presumably because some atheists disagree, and atheists have such a track record at being reasonable. And since he KNOWS that he is wrong in those examples, because atheists said so, yet he persists in saying that examples were given despite atheists disagreeing, well then by golly he must be LYING."
Please copy and paste the section of text where you think it is that these explicit examples were given -- that a motionless thing CAUSES a motionless thing to move. Saying that Grod mentioned gravity and particles, and that bmiller said, "Yeah!" is EXACTLY the kind of weak tactic I have been pointing out here.
bmiller said he had explicit examples of a motionless thing CAUSING another motionless thing to move. Just copy and paste the part where you read this explicit example.
Then we will all be able to see what example you now say you think bmiller was referring to.
Do you know why you and bmiller resist this? Because then we'll all see that no explict example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move was given. We will see that grod gestures vaguely to a standard and necessary technique for describing motion in physics -- establishing the reference frame from which other object motion is evaluated -- that has NOTHING to do with a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move.
Pretend pretend pretend.
Legion of Logic said...
" Atheists are the ones who move the goalposts all over the place, hiding behind the cowardly "I merely lack belief" lie."
I am personally convinced there is no god.
" atheists can't fathom anyone disagreeing with them without being stupid or brainwashed or lying "
I have indeed observed the segmentation of the theistic mind. In general theists are very bright and successful people. Unfortunately most quite apparently suffer some kind of rationality breakdown on the subject of god.
This shows itself here in an inability to face the glaring defects of the First Way. Not all theists suffer this particular breakdown. More sophisticated theists have abandoned the first way and moved on to the Kalam, which is much more carefully worded and avoids the blatant defects of the words of Aquinas.
For some reason there are people here who seem to have some sort of deep personal investment in the First Way, combined with rather acute cases of selective mental breakdown, hence the absurd readings of the First Way that gives us gibberish such as:
"an existent thing causes a potential thing to become an existent thing".
February 19, 2017 11:01 AM
@Legion of Logic,
"Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples."
Thank you for proving that it's possible to actually search back through previous comments. Perhaps someday atheists too will evolve and acquire that ability.
I expect them if they are honorable people to apologize now for calling me a liar. I will hold my breath until I do. :-)
One other thing to note:
"a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move." is technically not a premise or conclusion of the First Way. That's why I called attention to it.
Since motion in the parlance of the First Way means change, that formulation would be saying that a changeless thing would cause another changeless thing to change. You can tell from this formulation what is wrong. Aristotle allowed for everything to be changing except of course for the changeless changer.
Oops,
I meant "I will hold my breath until they do. :-)"
I must confess that I am confused about the last 50 or so posts. What, exactly, has been lied about and how is it relevant to the success or failure of the First Way argument?
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can."
Legion: "Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples."
bmiller: "Thank you for proving that it's possible to actually search back through previous comments. Perhaps someday atheists too will evolve and acquire that ability."
LOL.
Apologists confuse saying they agree with one another with actually demonstrating the thing on which they agree. That's how you can tell you're dealing with apologists -- they assure you they are right, but they never get around to demonstrating how.
Look at the above exchange. It's a laugh riot.
bmiller claims that explicit examples have been given where a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move.
Btw, this is ground-breaking stuff. This is the kind of thing that upends physics. There are going to be Nobels for this kind of discovery. And because of it's importance, we have a very, very stringent vetting process for this claim. So, what is it?
Legion: "Out of curiosity I actually went back and read. Grod mentioned gravity and particles, with motion being reference dependent. Bmiller then agreed that those were good examples."
LOL.
Is anyone ever going to just copy and paste this famous, Nobel-winning, explicit example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? Or are you guys just going to pass out your secret Nobels amongst one another? Because you're all, so, you know, super busy. Too busy to copy and paste. But not too busy to comment on ad infinitum.
Chris: "I must confess that I am confused about the last 50 or so posts. What, exactly, has been lied about and how is it relevant to the success or failure of the First Way argument?"
Apologist deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move. They declare that a thing need not be moving in order to move something else. (This is because if they allow that only a moving thing can move something else, then the conclusion of the First Way violates one of its premises.)
So, skeptics have asked for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move.
Rather than provide this example, bmiller has declared that "explicit examples" have already been given. When asked to provide these explicit examples (just copy and paste), bmiller has refused, but insisted that they exist.
Apologist here probably understand that if they can't provide an example a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, then the First Way rests on a false premise. And this means that the First Way is a flawed argument.
Apologists here don't want to admit that (after all, they've spent tons of comments here pretending that the argument is super good, actually), and so they basically have decided to lie that the First Way doesn't rely on a false premise by declaring that they have provided some prior example, which they somehow, mysteriously, refuse to ever bring up again.
It's transparently sad, really.
@Chris,
I must confess that I am confused about the last 50 or so posts. What, exactly, has been lied about and how is it relevant to the success or failure of the First Way argument?
The atheists here have accused me of lying because I agreed with a post from grodrigues that he provided examples of things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum and because I refused to link or repost the original.
This is why I chose not to provide the links.
Now that Legion of Logic confirmed that both posts exist, you can judge for yourself how they react.
One of the things you will notice is that the atheists here will try to change the premises of the First Way or misunderstand (purposely?) the premises. I originally gave them the benefit of the doubt that they merely misunderstood, but I’m changing my mind.
Chris: "What, exactly, has been lied about"
The only lie I have detected is from the atheists accusing bmiller of not talking about grod's examples, which took me less than five minutes to verify. As bmiller himself agreed that those examples were indeed what he was talking about, then the atheists' accusations of him lying are themselves lies. Of course, anti-religious atheists tend to support their beliefs by lying to themselves and others, since facts usually aren't in their favor.
"Apologists confuse saying they agree with one another with actually demonstrating the thing on which they agree."
Atheists confuse their own arrogant certainty with reality. Atheists invented a premise - "only moving things can cause movement" - and then demanded defense of the First Strawman argument they devised. Grod posted two examples he believed constituted things that can cause motion (physical movement, not Aquinas' terminology) without themselves having to move per se (February 14, 2017 4:55 PM). Bmiller agreed with those examples (February 14, 2017 9:18 PM). Atheists disagreed with those examples (February 14, 2017 7:37 PM). Atheists ON THE SAME DAY THAT THEY DISAGREED WITH THE EXAMPLES BEING GIVEN, began demanding examples (February 14, 2017 9:41 PM). Bmiller referenced those examples as having already been given. Atheists began calling bmiller a liar, and the only valid way bmiller could be a liar is if examples had not been given - not examples that convince atheists, just examples.
I actually took the time to check the post history - in this case, the entirety of valid evidence for whether or not bmiller was lying - and verified that indeed, grod gave two examples, and that indeed, those were the examples bmiller was referring to. Thus, it is obvious that bmiller was not lying that examples had been given, and that the atheists were lying that he had not.
A further point of interest is that EVEN IF the atheists are right about the two examples themselves not being examples, it does not require bmiller to be correct about those examples in order to not be lying - it only requires that bmiller not believe he is wrong about them, but continue to deceive and say he is right about them. As there is zero evidence that bmiller was being deceptive, beyond the wild fantasies that only exist in the atheists' minds, then it is obvious that the atheists are lying about bmiller having examples (disagreement and possibly being unknowingly wrong is not lying). If the atheists failed to convince bmiller that those examples were bad, then bmiller is STILL not lying by any true definition of the word.
Furthermore, Cal's attempt to change the goalposts here is also an attempt to deceive. Bmiller and I agreed about the fact that grod had given examples (right or wrong), and that bmiller had agreed with those examples (I myself have offered no opinion on those two examples, as I am not interested in engaging the First Strawman argument). Bmiller and I also agreed that it was the atheists who were lying, as is easily demonstrated by a few minutes of reading. To be fair, in this case the atheists may not be lying - they might truly believe they are correct, based upon the typical anti-theist inability to ever admit to being wrong, and their brains literally can't see obvious contradicting evidence. That would be a bigger problem than being a liar, for sure.
In this case, however, another lie is made - that bmiller and I are agreeing about the examples offered to address the First Strawman premise being CORRECT. Bmiller does, I myself have not offered a position and have no opinion on them, as they are irrelevant to the First Way's premises and conclusion. Fallacies and lies are what we are getting from the atheists at this point.
Cal: "Is anyone ever going to just copy and paste this famous, Nobel-winning, explicit example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? Or are you guys just going to pass out your secret Nobels amongst one another? Because you're all, so, you know, super busy. Too busy to copy and paste. But not too busy to comment on ad infinitum."
Not one word of this is relevant. We can't even get the atheists on here to admit that God should be capitalized per standard English grammar, which is easily verified. Thus, the truth of a proposition is demonstrably independent of the atheists' opinion of the proposition.
Anti-religious atheists seem to believe - probably due to their natural arrogance - that the only way an example can be valid is if they themselves are convinced. Examples were given, as I demonstrated. The atheists disagreed, and that's fine. Perhaps grod and bmiller are wrong, I really don't care as it is the First Strawman argument. But to accuse them of lying when they are plainly not lying, is lying. The atheists here are liars.
Cal: "Apologist deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move."
Here is the text of the First Way argument. Please extract from it the line that states only a moving thing causes something to move.
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.
Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.
Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.
Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.
But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
Why would the skeptic ask for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? The conclusion of the argument is the changeless changer. Being changeless implies that there couldn't be a physical observation of the changeless changer because anything that is available to the senses is neccesarily not changeless.
Chris,
Your bafflement is due to you understanding the argument, and they not understanding it. They are trying to, as you said, force the First Way argument into a scientific thesis, much like the alleged "God hypothesis" is supposedly a scientific question. They can't move their minds outside of scientism to think in terms of metaphysics.
Chris said...
" Why would the skeptic ask for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move?"
Indeed, to ask for such a thing makes no sense, and such an assertion is not to be found in the beginning of the First Way, yet theists here insist that is what the argument calls for, and they insist on having already provided examples of motionless things that cause other motionless things to move.
So, it is not we atheists who assert such a motionless cause of motion, rather, it is a couple theists who are falsely claiming that is a premise of the first way and they have examples of that claimed premise. We atheists are only asking for these theists to back up those claims.
G had the honesty to simply state his claim, whereas bmiller is being dishonest about it.
This is the section in question:
*For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.*
Clearly, Aquinas is asserting that a moving thing causes a motionless thing to move.
" The conclusion of the argument is the changeless changer. "
Which contradicts the above premise in the first way. Hence, the First Way is self contradictory.
People like bmiller suffer some sort of mental breakdown when confronted with this glaring deficiency of the First Way. He has resorted to all manner of bizarre definition changes, denials of plain logic, and even lies about having examples that back up the gibberish his crazy interpretations present.
The simple truth is that Aquinas starts out making a number of uncontroversial observations about motion as we ordinarily observe it. He then goes on to contradict himself, beg the question, and introduce a false premise at the end in the form of an implied conclusion, that god exists.
So, the First Way starts out very reasonably, then in the second half falls completely to pieces. For the theist who is invested in the First Way this reality is apparently unbearable, and the display of theistic irrationality and dishonesty that ensues is truly sad to witness.
February 19, 2017 9:36 PM
@Legion of Logic:
"In this case, however, another lie is made - that bmiller and I are agreeing about the examples offered to address the First Strawman premise being CORRECT. Bmiller does, I myself have not offered a position and have no opinion on them, as they are irrelevant to the First Way's premises and conclusion. Fallacies and lies are what we are getting from the atheists at this point. "
I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way (e.g. "Neither is any of this remotely relevant to the First Way because -- oh why do I bother", etc.). They are *just* counter-examples to an assertion made by Mr. Metzger and Stardusty, and proof that they do not have the least clue about physics, let alone the First Way, nothing more.
Chris: "Why would the skeptic ask for an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move?"
Please try and follow along. You already asked this question, and I answered: Apologist deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move. They declare that a thing need not be moving in order to move something else. (This is because if they allow that only a moving thing can move something else, then the conclusion of the First Way violates one of its premises.)
Premises should be sound -- meaning, among other things, that they should be supported. Apologists here are refusing to support their chosen premise.
Why do you suppose that bmiller and Legion won't just copy and paste the explicit example they refer to of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move? When one is defending an argument, is there ever a good reason for refusing to reveal the argument? Is refusing to reveal the argument a sign of a good argument, or a sign of a bad argument?
Chris: "The conclusion of the argument is the changeless changer."
Which rests on an unsound premise -- that something can move something else, without moving itself. Arguments with unsound premises are bad arguments. Apologists are twisting themselves in knots here in an attempt to avoid this conclusion. It's kind of sad, really.
Chris: Being changeless implies that there couldn't be a physical observation of the changeless changer because anything that is available to the senses is neccesarily not changeless."
Being changeless also stipulates that the thing itself cannot initiate change in something else. That is the riddle at the end of existence, and the one that is not resolved by the First Way. Sic.
Legion: "Your bafflement is due to you understanding the argument, and they not understanding it. They are trying to, as you said, force the First Way argument into a scientific thesis, much like the alleged "God hypothesis" is supposedly a scientific question. They can't move their minds outside of scientism to think in terms of metaphysics."
Translation: A bad argument (muddled language, unsound or contradictory, and ad hoc) is really a good argument if you free your mind of consistency, reason, and critical thinking!
Legion: "Here is the text of the First Way argument. Please extract from it the line that states only a moving thing causes something to move."
You misunderstand argument.
Devising an argument that is merely valid (basically meaning it doesn't contradict itself) is fairly trivial. But good arguments are both valid AND sound, meaning that with deductive arguments (which the First Way is) basically that the premises are testably correct (or, if the argument is inductive, that the conclusion itself is testable).
As you apologists have insisted, Aquinas should actually be read to mean that a motionless thing can cause another motionless thing to move. But this is demonstrably false -- only a thing in motion can cause a motionless thing to move.
So the argument sits with a dead mouse of a premise, one that you guys are trying to revive by insisting that you're not lying by demanding that we accept you assessment that a motionless thing actually can cause another motionless thing to move. Without actually providing the example that would support this premise. This is snake oil behavior. I am not surprised, because I have been discussing issues like this with snake oil salesman for a looong time now.
I wonder why you would refuse to support the argument you say you are defending.
From past experience, I can say with 100% reliability that those who refuse to support their argument, but insist nonetheless that they can, are simply lying -- to me, and maybe even to themselves.
Good arguments are always easy to support. It's the bad ones that are so difficult. So difficult that those who have something invested in them sometimes end up lying in an attempt to keep on pretending.
That is part of what it is to be human, I suppose. Still, it makes me sad.
grod: "I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way (e.g. "Neither is any of this remotely relevant to the First Way because -- oh why do I bother", etc.)."
Yes, as I recall I have also pointed out that what you wrote doesn't seem to be relevant to the hoped for defense from the apologists here. Still, you thought it vital enough to type out, fail to revise, and publish. So your wondering aloud kind of seems a little phony, doesn't it?
grod: "They are *just* counter-examples to an assertion made by Mr. Metzger and Stardusty, and proof that they do not have the least clue about physics, let alone the First Way, nothing more."
This kind of hurts bmiller's insistence that they somehow represent explicit examples of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, then, doesn't it?
grodrigues said...
" I myself have not offered a position and have no opinion on them, as they are irrelevant to the First Way's premises and conclusion."
The First Way is an argument from motion, yet the premises of motion are irrelevant to the conclusions from motion?
"Fallacies and lies are what we are getting from the atheists at this point. "
Which of my statements is a lie?
" I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way "
Ok, so you offer no examples to counter the premise of the First Way that a moving thing causes motion. I agree.
Aquinas is clear that a moving thing puts a motionless thing into motion , hence "the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. " Or does somebody propose a magic stationary hand that moves a staff?
" They are *just* counter-examples to an assertion made by Mr. Metzger and Stardusty, and proof that they do not have the least clue about physics,"
You defined 1 electron in the universe as literally the center of the universe and not subject to acceleration when a force is applied to it by definition.
So, that is one preposterous "counter example" that you readily admit is irrelevant to the argument. So why the use of the plural "examples"? You only get to define 1 magic electron that is an immovable celestial anchor at the center of the universe.
The First Way defeats itself by stating that a moving thing puts a motionless thing in motion. Also, nothing moves itself, and everything that moves is moved by another, and this cannot go on for infinity.
Therefore god cannot be the first mover, because god moved the universe, so god must have been moving and therefore could not have moved himself and must have been moved by another, unless he was moving for infinity, but this process cannot go to infinity, Aquinas tells us.
Sorry G, it is you who "do not have the least clue about .. the First Way", since you fail to see its glaring self contradiction.
February 20, 2017 5:17 AM
"Devising an argument that is merely valid (basically meaning it doesn't contradict itself) is fairly trivial."
So...you're saying the First Way argument is not contradictory and does not contain the premise " a motionless thing causes another motionless thing to move".
Applause!!
Now then, you state that apologists have been insisting that Aquinas be interpreted to mean that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move. Even if we use motion in Aquinas' definition and call the unmoved mover the unchanged changer, I still can't derive from it "a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move."
But I went back to check the posts on the ridiculous lie subject, so I will go back and see where this phrase originated.
@grodrigues,
"I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way"
Yes, and my response to you highlighted how futile it was to give someone explicit counter-examples to their specific objections when their response was to say the examples were irrelevant. Not everyone who takes a class can understand the course material or can follow the logic so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when we see it playing out.
Also, don't let this be forgotten:
"In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
Me:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.””
It seems the strategy is to flood the combox until everyone forgets.
bmiller: "It seems the strategy is to flood the combox until everyone forgets."
Actually, I gave you an answer to this a long time ago. You may have missed it.
I'll just paste it here:
Stardusty: "In the meantime, you have not given us evidence to support your assertions. Tick tock.
bmiller:”If you think anything in modern physics refutes the First Way you have given us zero evidence of that. None. I’ve been waiting for this evidence from you, but all we’ve seen is baseless assertions. Nothing burger.”
"That's not a question. It's a false assertion. / But sure, if I were to form it into a question, I'd say that Aquinas's physics (Aristotelian) are refuted by classical physics -- that objects in motion tend to stay in motion (instead of needing to be pushed). You don't understand that yet because, it seems, you don't understand basic high school (middle school?) physics."
Do you need me to spell that out further for you -- the difference between AT physics, and modern (classical) physics?
Do you really think that AT physics and modern (classical) physics are one in the same?
Legion of Logic said...
" I still can't derive from it "a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move."
That's because you possess basic reading skills at a minimum.
*For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it... the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. *
Pretty clear, right?
"Nothing" is used in the context of a strong claim. Clearly, Aquinas states that only a thing in actuality can cause a change from potential to actuality.
Just to be even more clear Aquinas uses an example of a hot moving thing causing an apparently stationary thing to become hot and move.
And to reiterate his point even further Aquinas notes that a staff is put in motion only by a hand, which is plainly a moving hand. Very clear, right?
Nope, not to some of the folks here. They insist that Aquinas only means to say an existent thing causes motion. In this assertion "actuality" means "existent". So we then get the gibberish of:
***nothing can be reduced from potentiality to existence, except by something in a state of existence.***
Even further, it has been claimed repeatedly that examples of a motionless thing causing motion have already been provided!
The reason for this charade is clear, an inability or unwillingness to face the glaring self contradiction of the First Way. The asserted first mover violates the earlier premises of the argument itself. To avoid this self contradiction the dishonest theist claims a premise does not say what it clearly does in fact say.
February 20, 2017 8:05 AM
We are at Ground Hog day again, regarding what I now consider deliberate amnesia regarding inertia and a deliberate misunderstanding of the First Way argument. What a surprise.
"The second reason is because throughout all these comments wrt the First Way, I have patiently reposted comments, added links to comments, rephrased things multiple times and in excruciatingly fine detail only to have the atheists here either ignore the posts or forget them."
"Apologists deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move." That is correct. The premise is that whatever changes must be changed by something else.
"This is because if they allow that only a moving thing can move something else, then the conclusion of the First Way violates one of its premises." Again, the premise is that whatever changes must be changed by something else, so there is no violation.
"...an unsound premise-that something can move something else, without moving itself." This is not a premise of the First Way. It is simply that whatever changes must be changed by something else.
"Being changeless also stipulates that the thing itself cannot initiate change in something else."
Why?
Chris said...
"Apologists deny that the First Way posits that only a moving thing causes something to move." That is correct. The premise is that whatever changes must be changed by something else."
Your use of the word "the" (singular) is incorrect. Aquinas presents multiple premises.
How many can you list? Can you state them all?
February 20, 2017 11:02 AM
SD: "That's because you possess basic reading skills at a minimum."
Indeed, at a minimum. In actuality, mine appear to be far superior to yours, since I understand what Aquinas means by motion and you do not. What's amazing is he DEFINES what he means by motion in the very same argument, and you still botch it. Motion is a potential becoming an actual. That is the definition. It basically means change. If you want to discuss only physical movement as an alteration of XYZ coordinates, go find a physics discussion to misinterpret. Aquinas wrote a metaphysical argument.
Legion: "What's amazing is he DEFINES what he means by motion in the very same argument, and you still botch it. Motion is a potential becoming an actual. That is the definition. It basically means change. If you want to discuss only physical movement as an alteration of XYZ coordinates, go find a physics discussion to misinterpret. Aquinas wrote a metaphysical argument."
It's a metaphysical argument?
Is that like alternative medicine instead of medicine?
Or alternative facts instead of facts?
Does a metaphysical argument mean that premises don't have to be sound, or the conclusion can contradict a premise, or you can make ad hoc assertions?
If so, doesn't seem like metaphysical arguments are really arguments, now, does it?
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "That's because you possess basic reading skills at a minimum."
". Motion is a potential becoming an actual. "
Ok, but actually what? In the example Aquinas gives and example of an actually moving thing (a flame) that makes a potentially moving thing (wood) actually move.
Actual motion causes potential motion to become actual motion, which is a perfectly reasonable observation based principle at our ordinary level of perception given the relatively primitive state of scientific knowledge at that time..
"That is the definition. It basically means change. "
Right, and motion is a change in position. Just as a staff is caused to actually change position by a hand that is actually changing position.
"If you want to discuss only physical movement as an alteration of XYZ coordinates, go find a physics discussion to misinterpret."
The First Way is an argument for god from motion. Motion is a change in coordinates. The first way is an argument predicated on the physics of motion.
" Aquinas wrote a metaphysical argument."
Wrong. This is a physics argument. It is an argument from motion. The examples are physics examples involving a flame, heat, and the movement of an object by a hand. Physics. You can't run away from it. Combustion, heat, and movement are physics arguments.
With the benefit of modern science this becomes even more clear. Change of all sorts is motion, at least on the subatomic scale, but typically detectable at larger scales. It is all physics.
Change is motion. Motion is physics. The First Way is necessarily a physics argument, a very badly constructed and invalid, and thus unsound, physics argument.
February 20, 2017 1:19 PM
"Is that like alternative medicine instead of medicine?"
Well the fact that you don't know what the difference between physics and metaphysics is, goes a long way to explaining your difficulty in understanding the argument.
SD,
The flame example is given due to the heat, not the flame moving around. Motion is change. When he says motion, he means change. When you force it to mean only local motion, you engage in a strawman. This is not an argument for God from physics.
@Legion of Logic,
I'm surprised you're still trying. They've demonstrated they aren't interested in honesty, and don't understand logic or physics including the underlying framework.
Do you really think that they have any interest in the truth after what we've seen? If they've continued to misquote little old me after it was pointed out to them, do you think they don't understand they are misquoting Aquinas also?
Bmiller,
Well I was just about to bust into an explanation of essential vs accidental qualities of things, but I suspect you just might be right. A mere suspicion, mind you.
In chronological order:
Me: "this argument still has the other problems I've pointed out -- that it doesn't relate to what we observe happening with real objects here in reality, where something doesn't magically move something else without itself having momentum (which means it is moving)."
Grod: "In the proper reference frame of a massive object like a star, the star has zero (linear) momentum (and angular as well if non-rotating), and yet it moves other objects by exerting gravitational pull. In the proper reference frame of a point-like electric charge like an electron, the electron has zero momentum and it still moves other objects because it creates an electromagnetic field."
Me: “And this relates to my point how?”
bmiller: "When someone says that only something moving can move something else, and you give him explicit examples where this is not the case but then he doesn't understand how your response is relevant, you have done all you can. / At least, some people have actually read the First Way and tried to think about it. I don't think that's a waste."
Stardusty: "By all means, please do give an example of a motionless thing that was caused to move by some other motionless thing."
bmiller: “Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant?”
Me: “They aren't relevant. An object in orbit, like a planet around a star, moves in orbit because it was moved by another object in a prior event, cascading back to the big bang."
bmiller: “Immediate failing grade. No more retries. You brought up the irrelevance of temporal beginnings. You also don't understand inertial reference frames.”
bmiller: “The atheists here have accused me of lying because I agreed with a post from grodrigues that he provided examples of things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum and because I refused to link or repost the original.”
grod: "I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way"
bmiller: "Yes, and my response to you highlighted how futile it was to give someone explicit counter-examples to their specific objections when their response was to say the examples were irrelevant."
From the above it’s clear that you both don’t know what your’e talking about, you don’t understand what grod wrote, and you cannot (because it doesn’t exist) quote grod providing, in your words, “examples of things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum.”
I wonder why grod hasn’t correct you yet? After all, it’s his words that you’ve misrepresented when you falsely claim that he gave explicit examples of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move, or, as you put it, things moving other things without themselves possessing momentum.
Legion: "This is not an argument for God from physics."
And there you have it. In order to defend the First Way, apologists have to run away from it altogether.
@bmiller:
Just in case there is any doubt, you have not misrepresented me.
I just finished reading Edward Feser's "Blinded by Scientism". Excellent! Tx LoL & BM.
Legion of Logic said...
SD,
" The flame example is given due to the heat, not the flame moving around."
Heat is motion.
" Motion is change."
Right, a change in position. Change is motion as well. A thing changes because something about it has moved, physically, from one location to another location.
A change in temperature is motion, literally, physical position changing motion.
" When he says motion, he means change. When you force it to mean only local motion,"
What other kind of motion is there, spooky action at a distance?
" This is not an argument for God from physics.
Of course it is. His examples are all about physics. His observations are all about physics.
Change does not occur in the absence of something. What is changing? How is it changing? What is actually changing? Some thing must be changing or else there is nothing to change.
Absolutely nothing at all cannot change, since there is no prior state or present state or future state for absolutely nothing at all. Some thing must exist and some property of that thing must change for there to be any sort of change. There is a word for the study of the changes of existent things:
Physics.
February 20, 2017 1:59 PM
Blogger Chris said...
" I just finished reading Edward Feser's "Blinded by Scientism". Excellent! "
Feser does not understand the basics of his own subject.
*that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically.*
The author fails to understand that science is by its nature provisional. A scientific proof is a provisional proof. A scientific fact is a provisional fact. To establish a thing scientifically is to establish that thing provisionally.
It is the self consciously provisional nature of scientific inquiry that allows the rationality of scientific inquiry to be scientifically established.
February 20, 2017 4:49 PM
@grodrigues,
"Just in case there is any doubt, you have not misrepresented me."
Thanks. I think it's pretty clear to anyone that's followed along that Cal can't follow even simple conversations much less understand the subject of physics.
@Chris,
"I just finished reading Edward Feser's "Blinded by Scientism". Excellent! Tx LoL & BM."
It's been a while since I read it. Thanks for bringing it up. I read it again and indeed, how appropriate.
grod: "@bmiller: / Just in case there is any doubt, you have not misrepresented me."
bmiller: “Do you understand how the examples grodrigues provided are relevant?”
grod: "I myself have also *explicitly* stated that the counter-examples I offered are absolutely irrelevant to the First Way"
I'll let you two wonder-twins sort this one out.
Apologetics land provides insight about how important it is to maintain the appearance of group solidarity, at the expense of consistency and critical thinking.
Legion: "Well the fact that you don't know what the difference between physics and metaphysics is, goes a long way to explaining your difficulty in understanding the argument."
Is metaphysical argument different from an argument?
In other words, does calling an argument "metaphysical" mean that said argument is allowed to contradict one of its premises, or employ a premise that is testably false, or use ad hoc reasoning, etc.?
If a metaphysical argument is expected to use the same rules as an argument, why would calling the First Way metaphysical clear it of the problems that have been pointed out ad nauseam here?
" I think it's pretty clear to anyone that's followed along that Cal can't follow even simple conversations"
Gee, it took almost no time for an example to be supplied.
This passage on the Cosmological argument address the subject of science and metaphysics,
" Since the point of the argument is precisely to explain (part of) what science itself must take for granted, it is not the sort of thing that could even in principle be overturned by scientific findings. For the same reason, it is not an attempt to plug some current 'gap' in scientific knowledge. Nor is it, in its historically most influential versions anyway, a kind of 'hypothesis' put forward as the 'best explanation' of the 'evidence'. It is rather an attempt at strict metaphysical demonstration. To be sure, like empirical science it begins with empirical claims that are so extremely general that (as I have said) science itself cannot deny them without denying its own evidential and metaphysical presuppositions. And it proceeds from these premises, not by probabilistic theorizing, but via strict deductive reasoning. In this respect, to suggest (as Richard Dawkins does) that the cosmological argument fails to consider more 'parsimonious' explanations than an uncaused cause is like saying that the Pythagorean theorem is merely a 'theorem of the gaps' and that more 'parsimonious' explanations of the 'geometrical evidence' might be forthcoming. It simply misunderstands the nature of the reasoning involved.
Of course, an atheist might reject the very possibility of such metaphysical demonstration. He might claim that there cannot be a kind of argument which, like mathematics, leads to necessary truths and yet which, like science, starts from empirical premises. But if so, he has to provide a separate argument for this assertion. Merely to insist that there cannot be such an argument simply begs the question against the cosmological argument.
None of this entails that the cosmological argument is not open to potential criticism. The point is that the kind of criticism one might try to raise against it is simply not the kind that one might raise in the context of empirical science. It requires instead knowledge of metaphysics and philosophy more generally." - Edward Feser
Thoughts?
Chris: "Thoughts?"
Wha specifically and exactly does it mean to have "knowledge" of metaphysics?
If one understands philosophy, logic, argument, and evidence, what specifically and exactly does what you call metaphysics add to how we organize our thinking around studying reality?
Chris said...
This passage on the Cosmological argument address the subject of science and metaphysics,
" to suggest (as Richard Dawkins does) that the cosmological argument fails to consider more 'parsimonious' explanations than an uncaused cause is like saying that the Pythagorean theorem is merely a 'theorem of the gaps' and that more 'parsimonious' explanations of the 'geometrical evidence' might be forthcoming. "
Indeed, a triangle is an abstraction with no known physical realization. The notion that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides is ultimately unproved because it rests upon unproved postulates.
But unlike the unproved speculation of god we can make 3 dimensional approximations of triangles that in each case agree with the theorem as nearly as we are able to measure, starkly in contrast to the speculation of god for which there is no mathematical formulation and no approximate realizations available to measure.
Thus, the analogy is without merit.
"It simply misunderstands the nature of the reasoning involved."
Au contraire, mon ami, the analogy itself reveals a profound lack of reasoning skills on the part of the author.
" Merely to insist that there cannot be such an argument simply begs the question against the cosmological argument."
You are the one making up the wild speculation about god, it is not up to me to insist there cannot be such a thing any more than I must insist Russell's teapot is impossible. Your teapot, your burden.
" None of this entails that the cosmological argument is not open to potential criticism. The point is that the kind of criticism one might try to raise against it is simply not the kind that one might raise in the context of empirical science. It requires instead knowledge of metaphysics and philosophy more generally." - Edward Feser"
Feser is most certainly wrong in the case of a Christian god, which is speculated to interact with the physical universe in a variety of scientifically detectable ways, and is thus, in principle, a subject of scientific investigation.
In the case of a deistic god that just poofed it all into existence and now hides from our detection that certainly is the classic god of the gaps argument. I can just as easily argue that inanimate superstuff that existed forever poofed the universe into existence.
The number of such formulations is in principle unbounded, they are all lacking in evidence, so the correct answer is we simply do not know and do not understand the origin of existence.
The simple truth is that no human being has solved this ancient problem and published that solution into general circulation.
The First Way is a particularly pathetic attempt to argue for god, at least by today's standards. We can appreciate the intelligence of the ancients and the progress they made lacking modern scientific knowledge, but as an argument in the 21st century it is invalid and thus unsound, and simply a very poorly constructed argument, so poorly worded as to hardly warrant the term "argument".
February 21, 2017 9:41 AM
Oy.
@Chris,
"Oy"
You see?
Maybe you missed the part where Strawdusty told us he understood Aristotle's argument better than Aristotle himself as well as all of the commentators on the "unmoved mover argument" since Aristotle.
bmiller said...
@Chris,
" "Oy""
Yes, my argumentation can be overwhelmingly irrefutable to the point that some people can only muster a simple syllable in response. When you regain your composure perhaps you will have something more substantial to add.
" You see?"
I very much doubt you do.
" Maybe you missed the part where Strawdusty told us he understood Aristotle's argument better than Aristotle himself"
Indeed I do, since I know ways Aristotle was wrong, my understanding of Aristotle's arguments is far superior to Aristotle's apparent understanding of them.
" as well as all of the commentators on the "unmoved mover argument" since Aristotle."
All those who see the errors of Aristotle are potentially equal or better than my understanding. Those who continue to cling to Aristotelian physics are a pitiable lot.
February 21, 2017 3:23 PM
I'll just recap, despite all the bluster and hand waving going on here from the apologists.
Apologists insist that Aquinas argument should include the odd premise that the mere existence of a thing is sufficient to move something else that's not moving.
But apologists deny that an existent thing has to also be moving itself in order to move another thing that's not moving. In other words, that there's no conservation of energy (magic!).
The reason they want to go with magic is because if they don't, the conclusion of the argument obviously contradicts the more natural, obvious reading of Aquinas, and the one that we can affirm with our everyday experience, and indeed, with more rigorous testing -- that only a thing in motion can cause something not already in motion to move.
So that's where we sit now. The apologists pretending that Aquinas should be read to invoke magic and deny the conservation of energy, because they're less afraid of that characterization than they are of the one where their argument obviously contradicts one of its premises.
And that is what best explains the shell game that tries to maintain the pretense that explicit examples have been given that a motionless thing can cause another motionless things to move, the endless caviling and refusal to address this gap, the special pleading that the argument should somehow be exempt from the requirements of good argument for the vague and woo-ish assertion that it is "metaphysical," etc.
But the last comment shall be the first
This sure is relevant...
"the general phenomenon of ‘clever sillies’ whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’"
HERE
@SteveK,
Haha! Good joke.
Most technically competent people I know can follow an argument. The atheists here can't do that.
From my point of view, the critics here of the First Way have failed to make their case. I have no doubt that the critics will disagree. That's fine.
Chris: "From my point of view, the critics here of the First Way have failed to make their case. I have no doubt that the critics will disagree. That's fine."
What's remarkable is the disparity between the quality of comments around the topic. Your comment is typical of this disparity.
Over and over and over, the skeptics here point out the obvious problems with the First Way.
Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance.
For instance, your comment above is common here -- it's not a meaningful response to the objections or prior comments brought up here by the skeptics, many in direct and careful response to your supposed questions.
But your comment is a signal of group unity, which is all that your mind apparently thinks needs to be done -- affirm that you belong to a group whose membership is established by a given consensus. This might be a kind of mental behavior, but it is not intellectual engagement of a topic.
Intellectual discussions (especially on the internet) are opportunities to dispassionately consider intellectual propositions, and exercise critical thinking to examine beliefs. Some (apologists in particular, but they are hardly alone) see these spaces as opportunities to express consensual thinking. I imagine that this satisfies some basic urge, in the same way that achieving a new level in a video game does.
I should say that I am grateful for apologist participation here. Not because their position has been shown to be reasonable, but because it so obviously (in the same way that pathologies reveal and underlying system) demonstrates mental behaviors that undoubtedly cloud all of our thinking. In other words, on a different subject, one in that I am as heavily invested as apologists, I would probably behave as the apologists do here. I think that what I can learn from observing apologist behavior here and in other discussions can be an effective way to improving thinking in general.
@Stardusty, thanks for you continued engagement here. Without your contributions I think I would have abandoned this thread a long time ago.
Interesting. Much of what you said I totally agree with, but in reverse of course.
Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism.
@LoL & Bm, thanks for the recommendations.
@Chris,
You are very welcome.
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?
It's kind of like pouring water into a sieve Chris.
bmiller: "It's kind of like pouring water into a sieve Chris."
This is what I mean; the amount of talking around the topic, rather than examining it with any real rigor, is where the huge disparity lies.
This is the routine:
2. Apologist asserts / asks a question about 5 things.
2. Stardusty goes through, point by point: boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Every point is addressed, with the opportunity for follow up.
Apologist absorbs none of this, follows up on none of this, and basically acts as if 2 never happened.
------
But show me what I'm missing: re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here.
"But show me what I'm missing"
If you re-read the past 560 comments you'll find what you're missing.
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
bmiller: "It's kind of like pouring water into a sieve Chris."
Stevek: "If you re-read the past 560 comments you'll find what you're missing."
Sic.
And there you go, in its diluted form.
Awesome.
It's very simple. Even a child can understand it.
The conclusion follows from the premises that things move, nothing moves itself, and there cannot be an infinite essentially ordered series of moving movers, leaving only an unmoved mover as the logical conclusion.
Per the first premise, an infinite essentially ordered series cannot move itself.
bmiller: "It's very simple. Even a child can understand it."
Apparently not so simple that you can do what I asked--which I agree, is very simple indeed.
I asked, Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false. That is a criticism of the First Way that has been raised here (along with many others).
What do you believe has been the best response to this observation -- that a premise in the First Way, as defined by the apologists in this thread, is simply false (and, hence, it's conclusion is not supported)?
Let's go back to the beginning of this thread. The first few posts.
Bmiller says that the premises are not violated if the unchanged changer (first mover) does not itself undergo change. Stardusty lists some objections.
The objection about "motionless things causing motion" is not really a valid objection to the argument itself, since the argument is about change, not just physical movement. A theoretical first mover could have telekinetic power and cause movement without moving, so the objection is rooted in materialism - matter and energy cannot cause motion (it is claimed) without some form of physical interaction or energy transference, hence NOTHING can. If one does not hold to materialism, the objection is moot.
However, let's set aside theoreticals like telekinesis. Let's posit God for a moment as a candidate for the first mover. One of the objections is that if the first mover decides to act (as in, cause a change), then the first mover has itself changed and thus violates the argument. I don't agree with this, since God is regarded as omniscient - he has never NOT been going to act in that way, hence no decision occurred. It's not like you or I making a decision.
The only valid objection I see that needs to be addressed is, how can God (or any candidate for first mover) initiate change of any kind, without that being change of another kind?
In other words, the objection could be phrased like "If the first mover is not parting the Red Sea (example), and then the first mover is parting the Red Sea, then the act of the first mover parting the Red Sea is a potential that was actualized."
Thoughts on this? Does anyone think that the objection can be answered solely within the premises of the First Way, or do the additional proofs have to also be considered? After all, the First Way was never intended to be a standalone argument.
One thing I think is clear, the first mover can't consist of matter or energy. Otherwise Stardusty and Cal's objection would without question demolish the argument. A being like God?
"For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false."
This is not a premise of the first way. There's your 'best response' rebuttal. Next?
"The objection about "motionless things causing motion" is not really a valid objection to the argument itself, since the argument is about change, not just physical movement."
No. If the argument fails on motion, which is probably the simplest description of change, then it necessarily fails on more complex descriptions. Aquinas begins with motion, for that reason.
Legion: ". A theoretical first mover could have telekinetic power and cause movement without moving, so the objection is rooted in materialism - matter and energy cannot cause motion (it is claimed) without some form of physical interaction or energy transference, hence NOTHING can. If one does not hold to materialism, the objection is moot."
Take it up with Aquinas then, who roots his argument in materialism -- real things moving, fire, staffs and hands -- these are all the stuff of materialism. Your interpretation fundamentally disrespects what Aquinas tried to achieve -- to explain an existential riddle based on what we experience. You are suggesting that he was trying to make an argument based on woo. I think that Aquinas was better than that, and am surprised that you would suggest otherwise.
@Legion of Logic,
This post can help clarify that God is not inert
Let me amend this statement:
It's very simple. Even a child can understand it.
But not every child will understand it.
Cal Metzger said...
" In other words, on a different subject, one in that I am as heavily invested as apologists, I would probably behave as the apologists do here. "
I doubt that very much. Beware the self effacing false equivalency.
February 22, 2017 6:50 AM
Chris said...
" Interesting. Much of what you said I totally agree with, but in reverse of course."
Like what, specifically? Up to this point I have seen almost nothing from you in specific argumentation, sometimes, rather, nothing more than literally a single syllable.
" Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- "
Not by you that I have observed.
"and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
The First Way is an argument from physics, unless you have somehow managed to remove change, heat, combustion, and movement from the realm of physics. Have you?
February 22, 2017 8:49 AM
@Legion of Logic,
"so the objection is rooted in materialism"
This is true. Materialism is incoherent and if that is your commitment you will find yourself in all sorts of impossibilities. The First Way is one way this can be illustrated.
If one affirms that material things change and that material things can't ultimately change themselves then the only logical solution is for something not changing to change them. But the materialist knows that all material things change so this is impossible in their world-view.
So they have 2 choices:
1) Widen their world-view.
2) Cling to a view that they know (and admit as we see in this thread) is incoherent.
What is odd is that some people who embrace #2 then claim that #1 is the incoherent choice.
Legion of Logic said...
" The objection about "motionless things causing motion" is not really a valid objection to the argument itself, since the argument is about change, not just physical movement. "
Please name an observed change that does not require physical movement.
"A theoretical first mover could have telekinetic power and cause movement without moving,"
That's not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, rather, an idle speculation of an incoherent notion somehow existing in a foggy fantasy. "Telekinetic", really?
" If one does not hold to materialism, the objection is moot."
If one does not hold to materialism rationality is moot and one lives in a world of pure fantasy.
" since God is regarded as omniscient - he has never NOT been going to act in that way, hence no decision occurred. It's not like you or I making a decision."
So god has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision.
" After all, the First Way was never intended to be a standalone argument."
Really? It is put forward as an argument from motion for god. It fails at that, obviously.
" One thing I think is clear, the first mover can't consist of matter or energy."
God has to be made of something, else god is absolutely nothing at all.
" Otherwise Stardusty and Cal's objection would without question demolish the argument. A being like God?"
Ok, god is demolished then. Call it what you want, matter, energy, superstuff, whatever. It must be some sort of material stuff that god is made of.
February 22, 2017 4:00 PM
It's very simple. Even a child can understand it.
But not every child will understand it.
Perhaps this is because some children cannot or will not read.
Cal: "Take it up with Aquinas then, who roots his argument in materialism -- real things moving, fire, staffs and hands -- these are all the stuff of materialism."
And Aquinas uses this to come to the conclusion of God, who is not made of the same material or energy as the universe.
SD: "Please name an observed change that does not require physical movement."
Personally don't think it can be done, based upon anything being changed by matter and energy (as in, stuff of the universe), which is a fantastic argument against materialism. Thank you for pointing out the extreme unlikelihood of materialism.
SD: "That's not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, rather, an idle speculation of an incoherent notion somehow existing in a foggy fantasy. "Telekinetic", really?"
What, you and Cal want to hog absurd answers as your exclusive domain? Besides, I used the example as a tongue-in-cheek method of pointing out the fatal flaws in materialism. Indeed, the matter and energy of the universe can't meet the definition of the first mover, due to their inherent limitations. Someone with the attributes of God sure could, which is one of many reasons to dismiss materialism.
SD: "If one does not hold to materialism rationality is moot and one lives in a world of pure fantasy."
Burden of proof is on you, and your assertion requires the acceptance of certain postulates that are unproven and must be accepted provisionally or on faith, or denied. I'm curious that you define rationality and fantasy based on unproven assertions.
SD: "So god [sic] has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision."
He certainly seems incapable of making you use correct grammar. Though I did read an article from some university or other today that said insistence on proper grammar was racist, so maybe that's your way of avoiding being a racist.
SD: "Really? It is put forward as an argument from motion for god [sic]. It fails at that, obviously."
It is also part of a much larger work that goes on to describe the attributes of God, thereby defining him as a far better candidate for a first mover than anything materialism has to offer.
SD: "God has to be made of something, else god [sic] is absolutely nothing at all."
Yes, but he doesn't have to be made of matter and energy as found in the universe. That's materialism, which is an unproven assertion.
SD: "Ok, god [sic] is demolished then. Call it what you want, matter, energy, superstuff, whatever. It must be some sort of material stuff that god [sic] is made of."
Materialism holds that everything that exists must obey the laws of physics, because everything that exists is made of the matter and energy to which the laws of physics apply. Materialism is an unproven assertion. Thus, you either have to demonstrate that God is bound by the same rules as the universe's stuff, or you have to demonstrate that there's no reason to believe in God (neither case has ever been made, so good luck).
I can see why the New Atheists struggle so much in these debates, with their intellects bound by such limiting philosophical shackles.
@Legion of Logic:
"The only valid objection I see that needs to be addressed is, how can God (or any candidate for first mover) initiate change of any kind, without that being change of another kind?"
This is not a valid objection. I have already said in this thread, twice at least, that Aquinas' view is not that God "initiates change", but that God is the cause of motion as such and without his concurrent, sustaining power there would be no change at all. The First Mover is first not because He is the head of the causal queue like
G ... -> e_n -> ... -> e_0
That is what someone like Newton wants to say, but that is not what Aquinas is interested in saying (although of course he does say that, but the *reasons* he says that are not rooted in his metaphysics but in revealed dogma, and therefore quite obviously, it is not something that he can use in an argument against a Gentile). Rather He is first in the sense that every other cause, or *secondary* cause, depends on God's power to be effective.
He is First, in the sense that every being depends on God's sustaining power for their very existence. Aquinas thinks that God's proper act, what distinguishes Him from every other being (including any demiurge, should any such exist, now matter how dignified), is *creation*. And creation for Aquinas is not merely a matter of bringing things into existence ("initiate change of any kind"), but of sustaining their very existence in the here and now.
And this is not just Aquinas' view, but basically the essence of theism as understood by orthodox, classical Christianity, as received and suitably adapted from the Greek tradition of Plato and Aristotle.
@Legion of Logic:
Forgot to add a most important bit: creation is *NOT* a kind change. Drill this in your brain or you will not get Aquinas.
Ack "kind change" -> "kind of change"
This is the routine:
1. Apologist asserts / asks a question about 5 things.
2. Stardusty goes through, point by point: boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Every point is addressed, with the opportunity for follow up.
Apologist absorbs none of this, follows up on none of this, and basically acts as if 2 never happened.
And that is why we are still getting typical (as described by me above) examples like this:
SD: "So god [sic] has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision."
Legion: "He certainly seems incapable of making you use correct grammar. Though I did read an article from some university or other today that said insistence on proper grammar was racist, so maybe that's your way of avoiding being a racist."
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "Please name an observed change that does not require physical movement."
" Personally don't think it can be done, based upon anything being changed by matter and energy (as in, stuff of the universe),"
Ok, so the First Way is a physics argument since all observed change is motion, only an actually moving thing can cause a motionless thing to move.
" which is a fantastic argument against materialism. "
Non-sequitur. The realization that the First Way is a physics argument shows how it contradicts itself.
SD: "That's not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, rather, an idle speculation of an incoherent notion somehow existing in a foggy fantasy. "Telekinetic", really?"
" What, you and Cal want to hog absurd answers as your exclusive domain?"
Ok, so it is an absurd suggestion, yet that is god, a telekinetic being, absurd indeed.
" Indeed, the matter and energy of the universe can't meet the definition of the first mover, due to their inherent limitations. Someone with the attributes of God sure could, which is one of many reasons to dismiss materialism."
God must be made of something else god is no thing, nothing.
SD: "If one does not hold to materialism rationality is moot and one lives in a world of pure fantasy."
" Burden of proof is on you,"
A thing is material. The material is whatever that thing is made of whether we are presently familiar with it or not. God cannot be immaterial else god is no thing, literally nothing.
" and your assertion requires the acceptance of certain postulates that are unproven and must be accepted provisionally or on faith, or denied. I'm curious that you define rationality and fantasy based on unproven assertions."
W L Craig is not entirely wrong on every subject. He has some rational skills. He actually does a fairly good job differentiating a reasonable assertion from a certainty, identifying that which is rational even though it is not absolutely certain.
SD: "So god [sic] has no free will. God is a robot incapable of making a decision, much less a free will decision."
" He certainly seems incapable of making you use correct grammar. "
There is no god of grammar. Language is used by convention. Every individual may use language in any desired manner.
"Though I did read an article from some university or other today that said insistence on proper grammar was racist, so maybe that's your way of avoiding being a racist."
I know of no person who is not racist to some degree. Jesse Jackson is an admitted racist against black people, for example.
February 22, 2017 10:02 PM
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "Really? It is put forward as an argument from motion for god [sic]. It fails at that,
obviously."
" It is also part of a much larger work that goes on to describe the attributes of God, thereby
defining him as a far better candidate for a first mover than anything materialism has to offer."
That assumes that there must be a first mover. The truth is nobody knows how to solve the problem
of the origins of existence.
SD: "God has to be made of something, else god [sic] is absolutely nothing at all."
" Yes, but he doesn't have to be made of matter and energy as found in the universe. That's
materialism, "
No, materialism is not confined to the forms of matter and energy we presently are aware of, that
would be a very limited way of thinking. Scientists are always looking for any possible
undiscovered form of material
SD: "Ok, god [sic] is demolished then. Call it what you want, matter, energy, superstuff,
whatever. It must be some sort of material stuff that god [sic] is made of."
" Materialism holds that everything that exists must obey the laws of physics, "
Principles, not laws, but ok.
"because everything that exists is made of the matter and energy to which the laws of physics
apply."
No, physics is not limited to matter and energy as we presently understand it. If some new
material is discovered then that will be a part of physics that presently exists but is also
presently unknown.
" Thus, you either have to demonstrate that God is bound by the same rules as the universe's
stuff,"
If god exists then god is part of all that exists and is therefor part of the universe and made of
something else god is no thing and does not exist.
" I can see why the New Atheists struggle so much in these debates, with their intellects bound
by such limiting philosophical shackles."
Your limitation is in thinking is in thinking materialism is limited to matter and energy as we
presently understand it.
February 22, 2017 10:02 PM
@Legion of Logic,
I wonder if you have considered that some people are just so locked into a certain worldview that they literally cannot conceive of anything else. I think you can see this from the External World thread.
The materialist, cannot muster enough of an abstract thought process to even begin to understand what the immaterialist position actually is. And so he imagines the immaterialist holds a different position than what was stated, one that the materialist can actually mentally process.
So maybe some people are just not very good with abstract thinking.
In my experience, apologists are incapable of imaging a world without a creator god.
They truly can't entertain the concept. If they could, I don't think they'd be apologists.
In every sane persons experience, Cal cannot even get the argument right. His most recent flub was recorded here:
"For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false."
And that flub was after 560 comments that were mostly devoted to clarifying the argument. At this rate, I estimate that it will take another 45,189 comments before you have it figured out.
SteveK: "In every sane persons experience, Cal cannot even get the argument right. His most recent flub was recorded here:
me: "For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false."
Good. Then you agree with me, and Stardusty, that the correct reading of Aquinas is that only a moving thing can cause a motionless thing to move, and that a motionless thing cannot cause another motionless thing to move.
I am glad that you agree that that is the sensible reading of the First Way, which is also consistent with what we observe.
@SteveK,
"And that flub was after 560 comments that were mostly devoted to clarifying the argument. At this rate, I estimate that it will take another 45,189 comments before you have it figured out."
Well, that assumes that your interlocutor actually wants to understand the argument or can. You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it. We haven't seen that yet and I doubt we will.
Haha, Cal. Not what I said but nice try. I only said you don't understand the argument.
bmiller: "The materialist, cannot muster enough of an abstract thought process to even begin to understand what the immaterialist position actually is. And so he imagines the immaterialist holds a different position than what was stated, one that the materialist can actually mentally process."
What you call an "abstract thought process" is really just incoherence, magic, and woo.
Laughable that "telekinesis" and any other number of superstitious wonderings are the apologist offerings here for how to save the notion that the First Way determines a riddle, let alone solves it.
Stevek: "Haha, Cal. Not what I said but nice try. I only said you don't understand the argument."
Pretend pretend pretend.
To be clear, the only people who understand the First Way are those who see its faults.
If you can't see the problems with the First Way, and you resist understanding its shortcomings, then no one can help you.
Here's the test for those who pretend that they understand an argument that skeptics can't apprehend: what does your supposed understanding do for you?
Apologist: "You don't understand the First Way, and I do! So, therefore...."
And, nothing.
That's the test that everyone who's ever been hoodwinked into buying snake oil never gets around to asking themselves. And that's what it's like to be a rube.
You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it.
@bmiller,
We've been going through that cycle for weeks.
You: Here's the argument
Cal: No, that's not the argument. THIS is the argument. It's got huge problems.
You: Aquinas disagrees with you for reasons X, Y and Z. Are you saying Aquinas didn't understand his own argument?
Cal: Yes
rinse / repeat
Peanut gallery: "Apologist: Here's the argument / Cal: No, that's not the argument. THIS is the argument. It's got huge problems.
/ Apologist: Aquinas disagrees with you for reasons X, Y and Z. Are you saying Aquinas didn't understand his own argument?"
Explain to me how an argument from motion can be sound if it doesn't recognize that a motionless thing does not cause another motionless thing to move -- or just provide that super secret example of a motionless thing that causes some other motionless thing to move.
You are so eager to defend the argument per se, that you forget that that the argument's premises need to map to a territory -- that a premise that is unsound makes for a bad (deductive) argument. That if a premise of an argument is that pink fairies only ride unicorns on Tuesday, then the argument's conclusion will be of little value no matter how valid its logic.
An infinite past is not compatible with the wished-for conclusion, therefore it can't exist.
A creator god MUST really exist but not in any way that's real, and not in any way that is compatible with existence.
Telekinesis.
creation is *NOT* a kind change.
This is among the casserole of nonsense thrown out by the apologists on this thread, and when I asked for any restatement of what anyone thought represented the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here, I get.... nothing.
Pretend pretend pretend.
rinse / repeat
You can tell that the atheists aren't capable of reading comprehension since they think I offered telekinesis as a serious argument, despite my pointing out it was tongue in cheek. If they can't even understand that, it's no wonder they are trying to force the First Way into a physics argument and making fools of themselves.
I wonder, does New Atheism attract fools, or does it create them?
Comment 600!
Post a Comment