Legion: "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."
Legion: "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."
I don't think you understand the term "tongue-in-cheek."
You appear to want to make fun of telekinesis, but your writing above indicates that you still take it seriously -- that you actually think that abstract thought causing real, motionless things to move (telekinesis) is a viable conclusion. But when it's revealed that telekinesis, the term, makes you appear like kind of a quack, you backtrack and try to say it was meant "tongue-in-cheek," the whole while seemingly oblivious to the fact that you are still defending telekinesis.
" 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.
Legion of Logic said...
" 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." Not the case " What, you and Cal want to hog absurd answers as your exclusive domain?" SP Ok, so it is an absurd suggestion, yet that is god, a telekinetic being, absurd indeed. February 23, 2017 7:35 AM
Actually, your delivery was kind of dead pan and on a blog where some folks seriously put forward all sorts of fanciful ideas telekinesis seemed like a fairly ordinary theistic assertion, and would be a fair description of the magic powers attributed to god very commonly.
"I wonder, does New Atheism attract fools, or does it create them?" People who think rationally on the subject reject religion and god. Those who don't, don't. For example, I have not noticed any responses to February 23, 2017 7:35 AM here, and the self proclaimed smacker on the other thread literally does not even know the definition of "materialist", yet he launches into long, tedious, confused lectures and is completely incapable of advancing his "theory" beyond vague shallow incoherent generalizations.
When I was a little kid it was big fun when my dad would point out that the odometer was about to roll over. Usually it was the small ones like going from 49999.9 to 50000.0 I always wanted to see 99999.9 go to 00000.0, I mean, fun just doesn't get any bigger than that!!!
Well, Cal provided a couple good recaps February 21, 2017 4:21 PM February 24, 2017 6:45 AM
It's been over 600 comments now and we atheists keep trying to refocus and concentrate on the actual words and the actual arguments and follow them carefully step by step in an organized and rational process but it is like whack-a-mole speak with the theists here.
In February 23, 2017 7:35 AM I realized you tend to slip into a view of materialism similarly misunderstood by the evasive, long winded self described smacker on the other thread, although paraphrasing his use of hyphens seems potentially useful.
materialism = material-only-ism
A material is a substance, stuff, or medium. It includes matter, energy, spacetime, and any new sort of stuff that might be discovered below the fundamental particle level or beyond the big bang or a dark material in space. If there is a god then material includes whatever god is made of.
Aquinas said only a thing in actuality can cause a potential thing to move to actuality. Since you recognize that all change is motion, and the First Way is an argument for god from motion, it should be easy to see that the first way is a physics argument.
It is a bad physics argument because it was written before Galileo and Newton, at a time when many physics arguments were bad arguments based on wrong principles.
The First Way is also a bad physics argument because it is badly worded. It starts out with a series of observations about motion that are very reasonable. But Aquinas falls apart by contradicting himself later in the argument, begging the question, introducing a blatantly false premise at the end, and he even fails to explicitly state the conclusion that is the whole point of the argument in the first place, that god therefore exists.
Maybe if you go back to February 23, 2017 7:35 AM you will see how your inaccurate definition of materialism is one key factor to coming to terms with how incredibly bad of an argument the First Way is.
I keep having to lower my expectations of New Atheists thanks to this blog, which is remarkable given how low they were to begin with.
But if it helps you sleep at night thinking telekinesis was a literal argument, far be it for me to prevent us both from amusement at the other's expense.
" Which part of the Feb. 23 comment were you referring to?" Kind of the whole thing of both of them :-)
I could possibly copy and paste it all here but that is why I copy the date and time, to make it fairly simple to go to a particular post. I realize wading back several days can be kind of onerous.
But especially the first of the first and the last of the second post.
Change is motion. If somebody can cite an example of any sort of change that does not require a physical motion, a movement of material from one location to another location, I would honestly appreciate an example, because I cannot think of one, and on the 23rd neither could you.
So, very apparently, the First Way is a physics argument. It is an argument from motion for god. Physical motion, a change in position of a material from one location to another location. That is physics, or is described by physics.
The First Way is also a logical argument. To be useful it needs to remain valid in the 21st century. It's no good saying it was a good argument in the 13th century. That might have some historical value, but no modern argumentation value.
Here are some points in the first way stated by Aquinas: Something moves. Nothing moves itself. Anything that is moved is moved by something else. Only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move. This sequence of cause and effect cannot go back to infinity.
So, he is making a number of reasonable sounding statements up to this point in the argument. However, in fact, the part about not going back to infinity is what the problem is all about, so it is actually an ad hoc statement that an actual infinity is physically impossible just because it is logically irrational. The remaining possibility is that we humans have inadequate powers of rationality to fathom an infinite regression of actual motion.
Further still, he begs the question at this point by introducing a conclusion as the justification for a premise by stating "because then there would be no first mover"
Things get even worse after this because he then posits a first mover that violates his set of premises he just gave us! Only a moving thing can cause motion, so god is moving. But that means god moved itself (a violation), or god has always been moving (a violation).
To really mess things up Aquinas closes with an ad hoc premise that is blatantly false.
Finally he does not explicitly state the final conclusion, therefore god exists, only leaving that conclusion as implicit to his ad hoc false premise introduced at the end.
So, as for the posts on the 23rd, they were pretty much just responses to your points, but I did want to clear up a few things: Materialist means material-ist, not just matter-ist. Material includes matter, energy, spacetime, and any stuff the might be discovered in the future such as stuff particles are made of, stuff the universe arose from, and dark stuff presently in our observable universe.
The First Way is a physics argument and a logical argument, so it must be held to account accordingly, and it fails miserably on that basis.
Legion: "But if it helps you sleep at night thinking telekinesis was a literal argument, far be it for me to prevent us both from amusement at the other's expense."
I'm not sure what you're even backtracking from. Telekinesis is no less evidenced than a motionless thing causing another motionless to move. If you want to posit something causing something else to move by, well, thinking it, but not transferring any energy or being in motion itself, then I think it's pretty fair to say that you're talking about telekinesis.
Here's what this looks like:
Apologist: The first mover moves something without moving at all. Skeptic: So, you believe in telekinesis? Apologist: No, that's quackery. Skeptic: What if I told you it really was telekinesis? Apologist: I knew it!
The best explanation is that the apologist suffers from these two deficiencies:
1. The apologist cannot conceive of a world not created by a higher being. The mind of the apologist literally can't step back to this place. This dooms all discussions about reality. 2. The only explanation apologists can conceive of for those who don't god-bother is that those who don't god-bother are ignorant of something that apologists are certain must exist (some good explanation), even though they themselves don't know that explanation and don't know how to find it.
The above explains everything on this thread, and much of the internet.
You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it. And you can tell when someone can't or won't understand the argument when he can't or won't explain the argument back in a way you can recognize it.
" You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it. And you can tell when someone can't or won't understand the argument when he can't or won't explain the argument back in a way you can recognize it."
Indeed, you cannot or will not understand the argument in February 26, 2017 9:47 PM above since you have proven yourself incapable of explaining it back in a comprehensive, coherent, and forthright manner, rather, only an unrecognizable smattering of disjointed distortions, diversions, confusions, and falsehoods.
bmiller: "You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it."
I can also tell when someone has read Harry Potter when they can explain the story of Harry Potter back to me in a way that I recognize. This doesn't make Harry Potter a wizard, however.
bmiller: "And you can tell when someone can't or won't understand the argument when he can't or won't explain the argument back in a way you can recognize it. "
In this way Harry Potter has an advantage, in that we can compare the text written by JK Rowling concerning Harry Potter, and we can use the text to confirm whether or not someone has read about Harry Potter. This would never make Harry Potter a real wizard, however.
It seems that with the silly "argument" here no one wants to refer to the original, and no one can reference any other magical texts that clear up the problems as described.
And that is why Harry Potter is so much better what has been offered here by the apologists.
bmiller: "When you can't answer your opponents, just spin some straw"
Apologists: Everyone should recognize that there is a dragon in my garage. Skeptics: This garage? Apologist: Yes, this one. Skeptic (checks out 2 car garage): There doesn't seem to be anything like a dragon in here. Do you mean a real, breathing, dragon, the way the term is meant? Apologist: Yes, in every way that a a dragon can exist, that is what is in my garage. Skeptic: Still, no dragon. Do you mean an invisible dragon, or a toy, miniature dragon, or something very different from what most people mean when they use the term "dragon"? Apologist: No, a real dragon. I already showed you my dragon earlier, so I don't know why you are objecting now. Skeptic: What? You never showed me your dragon. There's no sign of a dragon ever having been here. And there's clearly no dragon in your garage now. Apologist: Why must you strawman my dragon?
"This doesn't make Harry Potter a wizard, however"
The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. A skeptic that gets the story wrong will not come to that conclusion and thus the skeptic is wrong according to the facts.
In similar fashion, a skeptic that gets the first way argument wrong by inventing premises that do not exist in the argument - they too are wrong according to the facts.
SteveK: "The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. A skeptic that gets the story wrong will not come to that conclusion and thus the skeptic is wrong according to the facts."
I can think of few better examples of the inability of the apologist to think clearly, critically, and discern reality from woo than the comment above, as well as bmiller's continued inability to even grasp the criticism offered here.
Cal: For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false.
Me: Cal cannot even get the argument right. That's not a premise of the argument
Me: "Cal: For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false. SteveK: "Cal cannot even get the argument right. That's not a premise of the argument"
Nope. It is. Just ask a fellow apologist from this thread.
Legion (earlier in this thread): "The entire point of the concept of the first mover is that it does not itself undergo change. Thus it does not violate the premise."
You are so balled up you don't even know what you think you're arguing against. As your president would say, "Sad."
So what are you arguing for? Oh, that's right:
Stevek! "The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. A skeptic that gets the story wrong will not come to that conclusion and thus the skeptic is wrong according to the facts."
" You are so balled up you don't even know what you think you're arguing against. "
Well, Cal, you and I have done our best to recap, refocus, and bring the discussion back to a comprehensive treatment of the OP.
Thus far no theist, in over 600 posts, has been willing to engage in that process. All theistic engagement is a pot shot, bits and pieces, whack-a-mole process of arguing some small point here or there, but always with a steadfast refusal to apply whatever is said consistently through the whole OP and see if the OP stands or fails as a complete argument.
I laid out the whole argument again, start to finish, in one post just recently: February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
You did similar efforts: February 21, 2017 4:21 PM February 24, 2017 6:45 AM
The only responses have been some throwaway quips about rinsing and wizards.
The simple fact is that the First Way is at the very least self defeating. Any particular theistic interpretation of "act" leads either to blatant self contradiction or pointless gibberish.
I can only guess that perhaps this whack-a-mole thinking, only looking at a fraction of the argument at any particular time, is possibly some sort of theistic world view subliminal defense mechanism. Another possibility is segmented irrationality in the theistic sectors of their brains. Or perhaps it is as simple as willful and knowing dishonesty on the part of the theists here.
" Stevek! "The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. " The facts of the story make Harry a figment of the imagination with no actual realization outside the thinking of the reader or author, and is thus a good analogy for god.
" Nothing is said about motionlessness in any of the premises. "
Indeed. I completely agree that nowhere in any premise in the First Way is it asserted that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move.
Just the opposite. A premise is that only a thing in actuality can cause a thing in potentiality to move to actuality. Thus, only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move.
So, the first mover was moving.
That leaves two possibilities for the asserted first mover: 1. The first mover was always moving. 2. The first mover moved itself.
Both 1. and 2. are violations of other premises. Hence, the first way defeats itself as it is self contradictory.
You can see February 26, 2017 9:47 PM For a more complete recap of the premises and defects of the First Way.
SP "I completely agree that nowhere in any premise in the First Way is it asserted that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move."
"Then you completely agree that Cal doesn't know the argument. Nice work, Dusty!" Ok, Cal may have been referring to the theists who claim the first mover was motionless, but that would be a violation as well.
SP "A premise is that only a thing in actuality can cause a thing in potentiality to move to actuality."
" Correct"
SP "Thus, only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move."
" Fail! That's not a premise of the argument. That's your imagination at work." That is your unjustified assertion at work.
The first way is an argument from motion. Again and again we here the word "move" from Aquinas. The example provided by Aquinas to further explain the meaning of the premise is of a moving thing (a flame) causing an apparently non-moving thing (wood) to move.
Aquinas even provides a second example of a hand (clearly moving) that moves the staff. A stationary hand does not move a staff. Only a moving hand moves a staff.
Change requires motion. Motion is a change. To change a physical motion is required.
Simply blurting out the word "fail" is yet another example of the bits and pieces, whack-a-mole, scatterbrain "argumentation" of the theists here.
Not a single theist here has taken the time, in over 600 posts, to carefully and consistently apply rational argumentation to the whole argument from start to finish.
This is NOT part of the actual premise. The examples given are examples of actual things causing the actualization of a potential - which is what the actual premise says. None of the premises say anything about what condition the actual thing must be in - only that is must actually exist.
*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*
Aquinas just told you "actually hot" causes "potentially hot" to be "actually hot". Are you really this irrational or do you get some weird enjoyment out of pretending to be this irrational?
You say: "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to existence, except by something in a state of existence ", which is meaningless gibberish.
Your assertion of "actuality" = "existence" is stupid because that is not how Aquinas leads up to the statement, that is not how Aquinas explains the statement with 2 explicit examples, and if your idiotic definition is inserted throughout the whole argument then the argument becomes meaningless gibberish.
But go ahead, go throughout the First Way, exchange the words "act" or "actuality" with the word "existent" and see what you get...an argument of gibberish.
Do you have that capacity? Do you have even the most rudimentary logical capability to apply your definition consistently throughout the whole argument or are you the scatterbrain you appear to be, only capable of dealing one phrase at a time?
SteveK: "This is NOT part of the actual premise. The examples given are examples of actual things causing the actualization of a potential - which is what the actual premise says. None of the premises say anything about what condition the actual thing must be in - only that is must actually exist."
Poor Stevek.
Too stupid to realize that a premise that asserts that mere existence (without motion) is enough to cause another motionless to move is false.
Too stupid to recognize that the interpretation of the argument he tries to defend equivocates by confusing the existence of a motionless object and the existence of the same object while it is in motion.
Too stupid to know how to apply critical thinking in order to reveal the flaws in premises and inconsistencies in arguments.
And too shabby and proud and vain to earn much sympathy for his failings as described above.
Is there any theist on this site capable of sound analysis of a complete argument?
To do so one examines all the premises, applies definitions of words consistently throughout the argument, examines all the conclusions, and analyzes the argument for potential logical fallacies, structural defects, and unsound conclusions.
Anybody out there?
Here are a few hints as to what sound analysis does not consist of. 1. Single word or single phrase responses such as "crank", "rinse", or "lol", absent any subsequent substantial argumentation. 2. Conveniently selective application of a redefinition of a word in only 1 place such as: "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of existence (actuality)." 3. Dogged head in the sand refusal to acknowledge that a conclusion necessarily violates the premises already stated in the argument itself, such as First mover was always moving (a violation) First mover moved itself (a violation) First mover does not move (a violation) 4. "Motion" is somehow not physics. 5. A patently false premise such as "this everybody understands to be god".
Anybody? Can any theist here actually engage in a sound argumentation process?
"To do so one examines all the premises, applies definitions of words consistently throughout the argument, examines all the conclusions, and analyzes the argument for potential logical fallacies, structural defects, and unsound conclusions"
Ohhhh, I see! After 600+ comments you now want something like THIS
Stardusty: "Can any theist here actually engage in a sound argumentation process?"
I think you have your answer above, don't you?
I suggest that we turn this into an opportunity to compare notes on the behavior and mental processes of your run-of-the-mill apologists.
Principally, I have often wondered about whether or not defending the indefensible leads to such shoddy behavior as we have seen here (misrepresentation, misplaced sneering and unearned condescension, Dunning-Kruger, hypocrisy, sanctimony, an inability to focus on a topic, strawmanning, and the list goes on), or if these are the mental habits that have lead to the beliefs these apologists hold. I go back and forth on this one, and I'm curious what your thoughts are. In other words, do the beliefs lead to adopting poor rational habits, or does poor rational thinking lead to apologetics?
I think that what's often not understood by your run-of-the-mill apologists is how morally repugnant I find their approach to critical thinking and belief testing, etc. There is, I think, a moral component to the failings of the apologist intellectual approach (cowardice? narcissism? projection?). And that most of us are too polite to remark on this as a possible explanation for adopting obviously false beliefs. More often than not it seems to me that humility, as much as ignorance or flat out stupidity, is what stands in the way of rational thinking.
You said earlier that I should beware “the self effacing false equivalency.” I am curious to hear if you could elaborate on that. To be honest, there are times when I catch myself starting to reflexively think and act in ways similar to what we’ve seen from the apologists here, and so I don’t doubt that were it not for some good luck and happy circumstances in my life I might find myself thinking and acting more like they have here. (I know; shudder.)
"To do so one examines all the premises, applies definitions of words consistently throughout the argument, examines all the conclusions, and analyzes the argument for potential logical fallacies, structural defects, and unsound conclusions"
" Ohhhh, I see! After 600+ comments you now want something like THIS"
Indeed, at least the OP makes some poor attempt to follow a thorough, rational discourse on the subject.
Haines fails in a number of respects. I have gone through all of them in several comprehensive and detailed explanations as to exactly where and how Aquinas fails and Haines fails.
No theist has been able to do likewise, that is to consistently and thoroughly demonstrate that the clear failures of Aquinas and Haines somehow are not failures.
Haines does manage to state that "act" refers to an actually existing state, which you and others misunderstood to simply mean existent, as in merely existentially realized.
Haines does a particularly poor job with what he calls premise (2), since he glosses over a whole set of premises and arguments and examples that he groups under that number.
Haines fails to detect the obvious question begging in what he calls premise (4).
Haines fails to recognize that (5)a. is actually an additional premise, and one that is blatantly false.
Haines fails to recognize that his "unchanging changer" interpretation is a violation of (2)d. and is thus self contradictory.
Haines fails to recognize that the First Way is an argument for god, not merely an argument for a first mover, and thus, the final conclusion, "therefore god exists" is left only as implicit to premise (5)a., and owing to the many defects of the argument, not the least of which is the blatantly false final premise, the implicit conclusion "therefore god exists" is unsound.
Haines fails in his ad hoc assertions that "move" means "change", which is belied by the examples, both of physically moving objects (flame and staff). He further fails to acknowledge that all observed change requires motion, a physical movement from one location to another location of some existent thing, and the distinction between "move" and "change" in the premises is therefore moot.
No theist here has displayed even the slightest capacity to engage this subject at once thoroughly, consistently, and rationally.
" In other words, do the beliefs lead to adopting poor rational habits, or does poor rational thinking lead to apologetics?"
That is an interesting subject. But I have been an atheist so long that I find it very difficult to relate to the irrationality that grips the theistic segment of most human brains. I rejected the idea of god at 12, so theism is for me literally childish. In my personal experience only a child could possibly believe in such utter nonsense.
Yet, so many self identifying theists are otherwise highly functional. So the psychology of it all is indeed fascinating.
You might find better insights from some of the folks out there, say, Matt Dillahunty who rejected his theistic upbringing as an adult. Perhaps such a person can recall the internally conflicted thought processes he experienced as an adult theist.
But as to your specific question, I would hypothesize an intermingled positive feedback sequence over time. A self reinforcing stepwise temporal process of lived experiences and thinking with apologetics and poor rational skills that are triggered by the subject of god feeding into each other.
" I find their approach to critical thinking and belief testing, etc. There is, I think, a moral component to the failings of the apologist intellectual approach (cowardice? narcissism? projection?)." I would add dishonesty, perhaps at first a sort of honest dishonesty, that is, telling oneself falsehoods without realizing it, but then, conscious dishonesty as well for the more hard core and trollish sort.
" You said earlier that I should beware “the self effacing false equivalency.” I am curious to hear if you could elaborate on that. To be honest, there are times when I catch myself starting to reflexively think and act in ways similar to what we’ve seen from the apologists here, and so I don’t doubt that were it not for some good luck and happy circumstances in my life I might find myself thinking and acting more like they have here." Ok, but that is a what if. You are saying you could imagine yourself as X, but that does not make you X. That is part of the false equivalency. By luck, by dedication to reasoning, by whatever means you have intentionally avoided becoming X, so don't make yourself equivalent to those who revel in X.
For example, we may all experiences moments of anger and temptations toward violence, but there is a significant distinction to be made between the ordinary person who is able to cope with those inclinations toward violence and remain physically peaceful, versus the person who lives a life of violence.
" Gainsaying notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that anyone here has adequately shown where the argument fails." Just saying vaguely "I'm not convinced" is particularly poor argumentation, especially given the very specific failure mechanisms cited in March 03, 2017 1:21 PM.
" I leave you with this simple graphic" The graphic makes the mistake of using "god" in place of "first mover" or "super stuff with irrational properties yet existent".
Calling it "god" reveals the confirmation bias and limited thinking of the artist.
But as long as we are positing superstuff that can have irrational properties the author should have the infinity path going to infinitystuff.
And why aren't there any lines depicting the origin of god? What about god's god? And how about god's god god? Or maybe superstuff created god that created us. Mmmm, come to think of it, the possibilities are unbounded, and to pick any particular solution is arbitrary, unjustified, ad hoc, and very limited thinking.
One good thing about the graphic is that it brings up the potential for better constructed arguments from first cause, arguments that do not suffer from the many glaring defects of a 13th century author.
But that is not the subject of the OP, which is the First Way, a blatantly fallacious, badly worded, and unsound argument.
stevek: "Arguing over labels now are we? Okay, call it super stuff. I'll leave it to you to argue for the validity of your other claims. I'll be here...waiting"
Don't mistake engagement with your comments as interest in your assessment over validity, etc.; speaking for myself (but I would not be surprised if Stardusty agrees), I am only curious to see how it is that you continue to rationalize the embarrassingly obvious mistakes that you make.
>> Haines does a particularly poor job with what he calls premise (2), since he glosses over a whole set of premises and arguments and examples that he groups under that number.
List these premises and arguments and how they impact the argument.
>> Haines fails to detect the obvious question begging in what he calls premise (4).
Show that it's actual question begging. Show how an infinite sequence of things that do not move can move.
>> Haines fails to recognize that (5)a. is actually an additional premise, and one that is blatantly false.
5a is not part of the argument proper. I'll glady remove it for now. A separate argument can be made to connect 5 to 5a.
>> Haines fails to recognize that his "unchanging changer" interpretation is a violation of (2)d. and is thus self contradictory.
There is nothing in 2d that requires ALL movers to be changing, thus 5 does not contradict 2d.
>> Haines fails to recognize that the First Way is an argument for god, not merely an argument for a first mover, and thus, the final conclusion, "therefore god exists" is left only as implicit to premise (5)a., and owing to the many defects of the argument, not the least of which is the blatantly false final premise, the implicit conclusion "therefore god exists" is unsound.
You can end the argument at 5 if you want.
>> Haines fails in his ad hoc assertions that "move" means "change", which is belied by the examples, both of physically moving objects (flame and staff). He further fails to acknowledge that all observed change requires motion, a physical movement from one location to another location of some existent thing, and the distinction between "move" and "change" in the premises is therefore moot.
Irrelevant until you can explain how it is relevant
SP "The graphic makes the mistake of using "god" in place of "first mover" or "super stuff with irrational properties yet existent".
" Arguing over labels now are we?" No trivial matter as mere labels, rather what each asserted solution is and is not.
Aquinas thought this distinction important enough to warrant a (false) premise. He apparantly recognized that a first mover, even if demonstrated, would not necessarily be considered a god, so he made the false assertion that we all consider such a thing to be god.
" Okay, call it super stuff." Ok, superstuff it is then.
The problem of the origin of existence remains unsolved. Clearly, we are faced with some choices 1. Ordinary stuff has some properties that allow it to either pop into existence out of absolutely nothing or to exist forever, and our brains are as yet incapable of understanding those properties. 2. Some as yet undiscovered stuff that can give rise to ordinary stuff has such properties.
>> Haines does a particularly poor job with what he calls premise (2), since he glosses over a whole set of premises and arguments and examples that he groups under that number.
" List these premises and arguments and how they impact the argument." They are right there on the page you linked to me:
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved. b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10] c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act. d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in act. i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in act, and in this way the wood is moved and altered. e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense. i. That, in effect, which is actually burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold. f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself. g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
Importance discussed below.
>> Haines fails to detect the obvious question begging in what he calls premise (4).
" Show that it's actual question begging. Show how an infinite sequence of things that do not move can move."
The conclusion of the argument is that there is a first mover called U. In this premise he states the reason for the impossibility of infinite regress is the absence of a first mover.
Haines lists this premise as ~I. His justification is that I requires ~U, and there must be U, therefore ~I. But it is U that he is attempting to necessarily conclude! This is blatant question begging.
Haines fails because Aquinas fails to independently justify ~I, and fails to acknowledge that if I is the case then ~U simply is the case.
>> Haines fails to recognize that (5)a. is actually an additional premise, and one that is blatantly false.
" 5a is not part of the argument proper. " Baloney. This is an argument for god. Aquinas is not arguing for a first mover. Aquinas is providing 5 separate arguments for god.
"I'll glady remove it for now." Then you destroy the argument because this is an argument for god, and you have now removed any link to god from the argument.
" A separate argument can be made to connect 5 to 5a." Not a sound one, and not one that appears in the First Way.
>> Haines fails to recognize that his "unchanging changer" interpretation is a violation of (2)d. and is thus self contradictory.
" There is nothing in 2d that requires ALL movers to be changing, thus 5 does not contradict 2d." Of course there is, it is in the definition of actuality which is not mere existence, rather, existence of the property in question.
"not possible...unless".
This is a statement of absolute exclusion. This is a statement of "only".
"Actually hot...not possible unless...caused by actually hot"
Aquinas explains it to you clearly by definition and by examples, the second example being that of a staff which is clearly moved only by a moving hand.
>> Haines fails to recognize that the First Way is an argument for god, not merely an argument for a first mover, and thus, the final conclusion, "therefore god exists" is left only as implicit to premise (5)a., and owing to the many defects of the argument, not the least of which is the blatantly false final premise, the implicit conclusion "therefore god exists" is unsound.
" You can end the argument at 5 if you want." I can or you can but Aquinas did not. The reason is clear. The Five Ways are arguments for god. Aquinas set out to demonstrate god as a necessary being and a necessary conclusion.
God. Not superstuff, god. Aquinas is arguing for god. But he does such a bad job of it that apologists now try to say he was not arguing for god.
>> Haines fails in his ad hoc assertions that "move" means "change", which is belied by the examples, both of physically moving objects (flame and staff). He further fails to acknowledge that all observed change requires motion, a physical movement from one location to another location of some existent thing, and the distinction between "move" and "change" in the premises is therefore moot.
" Irrelevant until you can explain how it is relevant" Haines is the one who brings it up. It becomes relevant when apologists try to introduce some fuzzy notion of change that is somehow distinct from motion and will somehow allow the glaring defects in the First Way that motion clearly does not allow.
For those following along and are interested whether David Haines‘ interpretation of the First Way is correct or whether some internet crank’s interpretations is correct should refer to the evidence provided in the article’s footnotes as opposed to merely cranky opinions.
There is further scholarly evidence supporting Mr. Haines position of the terms used and analysis at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Of course scholarly evidence will not convince cranks, but it will help honest inquirers interested in expert opinion.
bmiller: "For those following along and are interested whether David Haines‘ interpretation of the First Way is correct or whether some internet crank’s interpretations is correct should refer to the evidence provided in the article’s footnotes as opposed to merely cranky opinions."
Of course, the footnotes DO NOT answer the criticisms that Stardusty has so ably explicated. But I understand that your only option is to pretend that they do.
If the footnotes acutally did answer the criticisms explicated by Stardusty above, you would be able to summarize them adequately, or, if that was beyond you, you could hope to locate them and cite them so as to show how they avoid the criticism put forth above. You won't do this because you cannot. So your only option is to pretend that you can.
bmiller: "There is further scholarly evidence supporting Mr. Haines position of the terms used and analysis at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy."
How sad, really. The answers, which if they existed, would be so easy to type in these comboxes, supposedly exists in something as vague and unspecific and unhelpful as a link that has countless articles on a myriad of topics.
But even better is the (accidental?) fact that when I click on the link that supposedly supports your position, I get the sad little truth from my browser, revealing that your supposed "evidence" (?) is indeed, "NOT FOUND."
And that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?
You have no answers to the criticisms offered here. Only empty promises that the answers exist, even if all evidence demonstrates that no one (least of all you) has actually found them.
Apologists: "The Washington Monument regularly flies to the moon." Skeptics: "What? No it doesn't. What do you even mean?" Apologists: "As evidence that the Washington monument regularly flies to the moon, I refer you, again, to the Washington Monument."
Apologist: "I believe this because all these other people I think are smart think it's true." Skeptic: "What are the reasons that those 'smart' people think it's true." Apologist: "That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who are smarter than you are think it's true. Therefore." Skeptic: "How would you know if these people you think have the answers are wrong?" Apologist: "They can't be. They're smart." Skeptic: "How do you know they're smart?" Apologist: "Because they understand the reasons for what I believe to be true."
" From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ." (link to Aristotelian physics page) March 04, 2017 11:46 AM
Ok, as long as we are playing oldies...
Here is a great link to learn all about astronomy http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/ptolemy.html
Here is a terrific link to learn about chemistry https://www.alchemylab.com/alchemical_theory.htm
And here you can learn all about physics, after which you will understand how wonderful the First Way is!!! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts. 2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important. 3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial. 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
I invite those following along to compare and contrast David Haines‘ interpretation and analysis of the First Way, (including footnotes and explanation of terms used) with scholarly articles.
Then do the same with the internet cranks and see how many of the 4 defining instances of a Crank we have witnessed in the comment section. (Hint1: Good listeners wouldn't repost a link to the same article in response to a comment that had the same link. Hint2: If the crank had actually read that link they would know their interpretation was, hence demonstrating #3)
Apologist: "I believe this because all these other people I think are smart think it's true." Skeptic: "What are the reasons that those 'smart' people think it's true." Apologist: "That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who are smarter than you are think it's true. Therefore." Skeptic: "How would you know if these people you think have the answers are wrong?" Apologist: "They can't be. They're smart." Skeptic: "How do you know they're smart?" Apologist: "Because they understand the reasons for what I believe to be true."
If there are any apologists left who think they can offer serious rebuttals to the criticisms offered throughout this thread, some of which were recently summarized by Stardusty in his comment on March 03, 2017 1:21 PM, then now would be the time to make them.
Otherwise I think this thread speaks for itself, and that the First Way deserves the "defense" offered by the likes of SteveK and bmiller here.
It's not question begging. It's common sense logic. If something cannot move itself (an agreed upon premise), having an infinite set of those same kind of things results in the same conclusion - a thing that cannot move itself. Therefore an infinite regress cannot produce the observed motion.
>> This is a statement of absolute exclusion. This is a statement of "only".
You're talking about 2d. Here he's talking about "what is moved" so his comment there only apply to things that are "reduced to act".
The statement "But, all that is moved, is moved by another" does NOT state that ALL movers are "reduced to act". It allows for the possibility of non-moving movers. There is no contradiction. You fail at reading comprehension - again.
No doubt you will continue to disagree so let's move past that. Your complaint is easily resolved by stipulating that (2) does not intend to state that all movers actually move. Your objection goes away.
In summary: I'm not convinced that any of your objections have weakened the argument in any way.
" It's not question begging. It's common sense logic. " The 2 are not mutually exclusive
"If something cannot move itself (an agreed upon premise)," Just a premise, not necessarily agreed upon or consistently applied.
" having an infinite set of those same kind of things results in the same conclusion - a thing that cannot move itself. Therefore an infinite regress cannot produce the observed motion." You are muddled. The infinite regress is an irrational alternative to the irrationality of an unmoved and unmoving mover.
All alternatives are irrational. That is why the problem is unsolved. Aquinas is blatantly begging the question in a vain attempt to solve the unsolvable problem.
" The statement "But, all that is moved, is moved by another" does NOT state that ALL movers are "reduced to act"." Right, but the further premise does. Stop cherry picking what you want and read the whole argument. Learn how to deal with a matrix, not just one element.
" No doubt you will continue to disagree so let's move past that." No, let's not. You are begging the question like Aquinas but in an even more muddled manner, and you are ignoring a matrix of logic, merely cherry picking whatever suits you at the moment, displaying almost no capacity for complex problem solving.
This is like solving a set of simultaneous equations by you can only think of one equation at a time. You need to develop the capacity to analyze whole sets of logical relationships or you will be forever lost as you are now.
" Your complaint is easily resolved by stipulating that (2) does not intend to state that all movers actually move. Your objection goes away." Wrong, because of 2d.
Why do you keep running away from 2d? Is this a conscious diversion or a subconscious defense mechanism against facing the blatant irrationality of the First Way?
Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others. It's another one of your rebuttals that haven't convinced very many people that the argument is flawed. There's a reason for that.
My position is that the argument isn't obviously wrong. It could be wrong, but I have no good reason to think that it actually is wrong.
Yours is that the argument is obviously wrong. You say that you have good reasons to think that the argument is logically flawed.
The reality is your reasons fail to convince the majority of people who have studied Aquinas in depth - the experts. This is not an argument from popularity. This is just a fact.
stevek: "Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others. It's another one of your rebuttals that haven't convinced very many people that the argument is flawed. There's a reason for that."
The standard for an argument isn't whether or not it convinces you, or anyone else.
The standard is the rules for argument itself: consistency, the clarity of the descriptions, the avoiding of informal fallacies, and the soundness of the premises.
No one cares if you or anyone else says you pronounce any argument convincing. Get over yourself.
The reason the rules for argument above are valued is because they can produce results.
Your pronouncing yourself convinced by a clearly flawed argument is not a result -- it's a measure of your thinking abilities. The fact that your flawed argument can produce no results (other than fooling you, and others like you, into failing to see it's obvious deficiencies) is the only "result" the argument achieves. Congratulations. You have bought a ticket to a lottery whose reward is muddled thinking and where only the blinkered win.
The First Way fails to meet the rules for argument in the many ways explained here, in a series of comments that may span as long as the delusions of the superstitious -- in other words, ad infinitum.
Stevek: "The reality is your reasons fail to convince the majority of people who have studied Aquinas in depth - the experts. This is not an argument from popularity. This is just a fact."
The reality is that the argument is flawed for obvious reasons, that you can't admit this, and that you have no way of resolving this in the way you insist because your argument produces no results. You've got nothing.
So you retreat to vague and fallacious claims, pretending that your or someone else's determination about an argument's conclusions is the standard we should accept, instead of consistency, the clarity of the descriptions, the avoiding of informal fallacies, and the soundness of the premises.
"Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) frequently:
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, 2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology, 3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series" for instance and the internet cranks' understanding, one will find the Wikipedia description apt.
>> According to the argument, what is the good reason that a series of causes cannot proceed to infinity?
I explained that. Others here explained that. Aquinas explained that. Feser explained that. The list goes on.
>> The reality is that the argument is flawed for obvious reasons, that you can't admit this, and that you have no way of resolving this in the way you insist because your argument produces no results. You've got nothing.
I've got the fact that it's NOT OBVIOUS to the majority of people who have studied Aquinas and philosophy. If these flaws are so obvious how come nobody sees them but Cal and Dusty - the Crank Brothers?
" Meaning your rebuttals haven't resolved anything." Wrong, my rebuttals have resolved the false assertion that the First Way solves the unsolvable problem.
>> Wrong, because of 2d.
" Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others. It's another one of your rebuttals that haven't convinced very many people that the argument is flawed. There's a reason for that." Indeed. The reason is that those who remain unconvinced that the problem of the origin of existence remains unsolved are irrational, at least in the portion of their thinking they apply to this unsolved problem.
I have battled many cranks in my lifetime, mostly in mathematics and physics, (anti-Cantorians, peddlers of Göedel woo, egregious distortionists of GR, etc.) and you are completely correct, although to be fair, I think the description fits Stardusty better than Mr. Metzger.
grod: "I have battled many cranks in my lifetime, mostly in mathematics and physics..."
Sure you have.
What's so sad is that apologists like many of those commenting here, the ones who pretend that Aquinas's First Way is a good argument, let alone relevant to understanding physics today, are simply lost in a little bubble in which their imaginings are, at best, quaint.
From an earlier thread:
grod: “ Of course you are a clueless about physics. And really, about everything. For one thing because physics is absolutely dependent on mathematics, say calculus," Stardusty: “Actually you have that backwards, mathematics is dependent upon physics, as well as human concepts. Applied math is descriptive, not prescriptive. If the math does not fit observation the math is wrong. The physical universe is never wrong, or right, it simply is what it is.”
Stardusty: ”Our equations of physics and chemistry are restatements of conservation. / E=mc^2 is a ridged relationship, there is no poof term, nothing gets in or out. / 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O is a simple chemical formula, again, conservation holds." grod: “Neither equations are "restatements of conservation", this is just dumb." Stardusty: “Actually they are. Calling something "dumb" is hardly a convincing argument. “
grod: “ not all equations of physics are laws of conservation. There are non-conservative physical systems." Stardusty: “No, that would be magic. I suppose for a theist that is easy to accept, but no, you will not find that in your physics text book.“
grod: “ Not all physical quantities are conserved, etc. and etc. " Stardusty: “No, that would be magic. There is no poof in physics.”
grod: “Stop pretending, you are fooling nobody." Stardusty: “You speak as though you have never taken a physics course, have you? If so did you keep your textbook? I have a collection of them and never once in any of them did I read an example where matter/energy was not conserved.”
Grod never replied to that last question. I wonder why.
" I have battled many cranks in my lifetime, mostly in mathematics and physics, (anti-Cantorians, peddlers of Göedel woo, egregious distortionists of GR, etc.) and you are completely correct, although to be fair, I think the description fits Stardusty" Interesting, how have I distorted mathematics, and/or physics (such as GR)?
You have battled crank physics yet you adhere to the First Way? You do realize that Aristotle was wrong, don't you? I mean, you must, since you are such an expert in physics and all.
In truth, the only way to adhere to the First Way is to deny to progress of science in the last 700 years.
" I've got the fact that it's NOT OBVIOUS to the majority of people who have studied Aquinas and philosophy. If these flaws are so obvious how come nobody sees them but Cal and Dusty - the Crank Brothers?"
Because most people who study Aquinas in detail are Christian theologians with a strong bias toward irrationality on the subject of god.
You are apparently in that bubble. Outside your bubble, in the fields of modern science, nobody adheres to the First Way. Serious scientists don't bother studying Aquinas in detail any more than they bother with Greek mythology as anything more than a quaint curiosity.
The First Way has the credibility of astrology, alchemy, exorcism, witchcraft, Aristotelian physics, geocentrism, young Earth creationism, and a variety of ancient ideas that have no value in modern science. To the extent that anybody still believes in such things they are understood to be fools by those educated in modern science who are not themselves infected with pernicious theistic irrationality.
Dusty's last comment is further proof that he doesn't even understand the argument and is ignorantly biased against it. Nothing has changed over the course of 600+ comments
" Dusty's last comment is further proof that he doesn't even understand the argument and is ignorantly biased against it. Nothing has changed over the course of 600+ comments"
In over 600 comments you and all theists here have failed to follow a rational, comprehensive, and consistent analysis of the first way. You, as all theists, simply repeat meaningless snippets such as "crank" or "ignorantly biased".
You did make some halfhearted attempt to respond to yet another of my thorough reviews of the failures of Aquinas, but you sputtered to meaningful silence after March 06, 2017 11:30 PM returning to your habit of simply stating that "Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others" which is just a shell game, a diversion, an argumentation equivalent of "look, your shoe's untied".
You are fond of saying "rinse/repeat".
Indeed, I consistently repeat my comprehensive set of reasons that the First Way is self contradictory, factually false, begs the question, is invalid, and therefore unsound.
You repeat a few half baked potshots at my carefully reasoned arguments, and when I show you to be wrong you just repeat your diversions.
You have displayed no capacity of any sort to reason your way through a whole set of arguments by consistently applying word definitions, valid logic, and sound assertions when speaking on the subject of god.
You have displayed no capacity for engaging in a thoughtful, focused, relevant ongoing exchange on the merits.
I have never met a theist with such capacities. All those with such capacities do in fact engage on the subject carefully and inevitably reach the conclusion that the arguments for god are unsound and themselves rid themselves of their irrational belief in god.
The only people left to be theists are either those who simply do not think about it in great detail, merely having faith, or those who try some sort of engagement but lacking the capacity for thorough, rational, deep, focused, and consistent analysis inevitably display a hackneyed, scattered, sporadic, irrational, inconsistent smattering of disjointed utterances, like all the theists here, for example.
But by all means, do give it a go March 06, 2017 11:30 PM See if you can actually address all those points in detail, and all the points in the recap I provided that led to it.
Do you have the mental capacity to do so? So far you have not displayed such.
"1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts. 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions."
We can see from the comment sections that cranks consistently ignore and fail to deal with the common scholarly interpretation of the First Way while they insist that their own cranky ideas need serious attention.
Indeed they continue to insist on their cranky ideas even when the very sources they quote tell them they are wrong via email.
"3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial."
Anyone reading anywhere in in these threads can easily see that the apologists here have no rebuttals to the criticism offered of the silly First Way, over and over and over by skeptics here.
All that we see is the apologist standard of pretending that the rebuttal to the criticism offered lies somewhere else, NEVER in the one place it would actually do some good.
Right there, under the fingertips of the apologist who types silly projections about cranks and ignorance and biases, etc. Right there is where the rebuttal could have gone, every time.
But funny, all they ever get around to typing are psychological projections, about their own ignorance and biases, etc.
I wonder why that would be. I wonder if it's because when they try and come up with the rebuttal, and they realize they can't, and they realize that no one has ever found a good rebuttal for the silly argument they've sworn to defend, they find that they've been dishonest, and they've been fooled, and they're largely ignorant about something that should be obvious.
And that's when they take those realizations, which make them so uncomfortable, and they project them onto the people who make them feel that way.
That's a popular theory, anyway.
I dunno. Maybe they're just genuinely shabby people.
Unsurprisingly and as predicted, the crank response is to ignore all of the responses offered as well as the scholarly consensus referenced over the last 680 comments and insist that only their cranky ideas need to be addressed. Ad nauseam.
It is helpful for readers to witness this happening immediately after it has been pointed out.
" Unsurprisingly and as predicted, the crank response is to ignore all of the responses offered as well as the scholarly consensus referenced over the last 680 comments" The scholarly consensus is that Aquinas wrote nonsense.
You can find this consensus in any college physics textbook. Do you own one? If so, please open it and try to find in it anything resembling Aristotelian physics, Thomist causality, or anything that is a derivative of Aquinas.
You are in a bubble. Only a fringe tiny sect of "scholars" find any validity in Aquinas whatsoever.
" and insist that only their cranky ideas need to be addressed. Ad nauseam." No theist here has displayed the slightest capacity for addressing the glaring defects of the First Way. Every time I list them in comprehensive detail all that happens is a few scattered offhand quips in return, and then when I answer those quips there is nothing further from the theist. Rinse/repeat indeed.
For example February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
I again, in that post, took a comprehensive approach. What followed from theists was a few scattered and shallow comments, and when I addressed those comments there was nothing further from the theists. Ad nauseum? No, not at all. No theist has displayed here the slightest capacity for engaging in a thorough, rational, focused, engagement on the specific topics at hand.
You have yet to provide an example of a motionless thing that is caused to move by a motionless thing. No theist here can explain how absurd the First Way becomes when "merely existent" replaces "act" or "actually" throughout the entire argument.
The simplist explanations for the failure of all theists to engage in a thorough, focused, rational exchange on posts such as February 26, 2017 9:47 PM are: 1. General lack of reasoning skills. 2. A selective mental breakdown on the subject of god specifically. 3. Lack of science and logic education. 4. Dishonesty coupled with a fetishistic pleasure of being evasive and non responsive.
But by all means, do prove me wrong, try, if you are able, to address February 26, 2017 9:47 PM By "address" I mean to hold in your mind the whole argument, and address each point in rational and logical terms. When your errors are then pointed out engage in a thorough, honest, focused, rational, logical, honest exchange.
Does any theist here have any capacity whatsoever to do so?
Just to make it real easy for you, I will lay it out again, in detail, in a few more posts below.
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved: Response- The speculated god would have to have "moved" (changed or altered or undergone some sort of process) in order to be a "mover". For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. If this speculated god was motionless and then made a decision it “moved” itself. Even if no decision was made, if the speculated god was motionless and then “moved” in any sense it must have “moved” itself. Thus on a previously motionless god (5) is incompatible with (2).
Alternatively, on a god eternally in motion the following is violated: (4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
In either case, Aquinas defeats his own argument through self-contradiction.
a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13] Response- False by counter example. I am part of all and I do not consider this to be god. Even if the failed logic of the argument could somehow be rescued the first cause, or first mover, or uncaused cause, or unmoved mover could be merely another inanimate state of existent something. Thus, this assertion is both patently false by counter example and unsound since it suffers from being a false dichotomy.
Continuing with some further points, in general, in my view, your listing of premises is abbreviated. A more complete list of premises illuminates flaws in the First Way including self contradiction, begging the question, and false assertion.
For example, what you show as 2(d) is actually a very important premise. Aquinas explains by example in addition to his argumentation that a particular kind of change change can only be caused by a thing already changing in the same way. Only a hot thing can change a potentially hot thing to become a hot thing. Thus, only a moving thing can cause a potentially moving thing to move.
We see then that the asserted unmoved mover violates at least some premise or combination of premises that Aquinas previously set forth.
Since 2(d) requires that motion is caused only by a moving thing then U was moving when U caused the first motion in our observable universe.
But motion cannot proceed to a past infinity, according to premise (4). After all, if motion could proceed to a past infinity then I would be the case and therefore ~U would be the case.
So U must have been motionless, and then moved. Yet premise (2) asserts all that is moved, is moved by another, making U not the first mover at all.
So, U must have moved itself, but that is a violation of 2(f).
In summary, Aquinas collapses under his own weight, or is hoisted upon his own petard, or whatever metaphor you prefer, or perhaps you prefer no such metaphor, in which case it is logically apparent that the First Way is invalid by the fallacy of self contradiction, and therefore unsound.
As I mentioned below, in my view your analysis is abbreviated, and omits certain elements that when properly included make the argument invalid, and therefore unsound.
For example, you write these lines: C2) I (premise 4) CC) U (premise 5)
But those lines do not fully represent the statements in the text. A more complete accounting of the text gives us. C1) U (premise in 4a) C2) U→~I (4a→4) C3) I (premise 4) C4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a) C5) U→G (non sequitur, ad hoc, false dichotomy fallacy of 5a ) (5a also factually false therefore unsound) (G is only a statement of personal understanding, not existence) CC) G→E (implied that God exists, because U exists and U is understood to be God)
Legend: G = U is understood to be God E = God exists
Since you are working toward your PhD I suggest that such an abbreviated approach is not academically sufficient. Is it not reasonable that the full text should be examined, not a subset of that text?
It is true that by choosing only certain items as a subset an apparently valid (though unsound) argument can be written. I do not see any academic or analytical value in that approach. For example, why did you omit G? After all, these are arguments for God, five ways of arguing for God. God, very specifically, not an inanimate something, rather, very explicitly God.
In fact, without G, there is no argument for God. Aquinas very apparently recognized this, but could not make a logical connection between his asserted U and G, so he simply added a (false) assertion at the end, ad hoc.
Aquinas did not explicitly state his conclusion, the foundational reason for making his 5 arguments or 5 ways, "therefore God exits". The conclusion "therefore God exits" is left as an implication of a (false) assertion of an ad hoc understanding of U. Did you omit G and E from your notation in recognition of this exceedingly tenuous link?
bmiller: "Unsurprisingly and as predicted, the crank response is to ignore all of the responses offered..."
This describes the comments feebly offered by the apologists here, yes. For evidence, read anywhere in the comments above.
bmiller: "...as well as the scholarly consensus referenced..."
This is the dilettantish language of the home-schooled; your writing simultaneously reveals your poor education, and your misplaced envy for what you seem to think a good education provides. You apparently think that a scholar is one who must instantly be granted authority on a given topic, when in fact a scholar is one who has acquired some knowledge through a process built not just on source knowledge but also on critical thinking.
bmiller: "...over the last 680 comments and insist that only their cranky ideas need to be addressed. Ad nauseam."
Your ideas are in the minority, so your silly attempt to mischaracterize your pet notions as mainstream just makes you seem even more out of touch, like the flat earther who takes comfort in the fact that virtually everyone who belongs to the flat earth society shares his views.
bmiller: "It is helpful for readers to witness this happening immediately after it has been pointed out."
Like most trolls, your narcissism betrays you. And by that I mean your narcissism is obvious, and it is also almost certainly tied to your inability to think critically; humility regarding our stance to knowledge is a key factor in beginning to think critically, and in this way I think that narcissists remain at a decisive disadvantage.
It also makes it harder for others to like you enough to try and help you.
Here I have done you all the service of using act = exist consistently throughout the argument.
Do you know what an equivocation is? To avoid this fallacy we use definitions consistently, not, for example, only in one phrase of 2(d).
Note, using this definition consistently turns the argument into immediate gibberish.
(1) For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves. (2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another. a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved. b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in existence.[10] c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence. d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to existence, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in existence. i. For example, an existent burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in existence, and in this way the wood is moved and altered. e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in existence and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense. i. That, in effect, which is existent burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold. f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself. g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another. (3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. (4) But this cannot proceed to infinity: a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another, b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved: a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13]
Most questions that a skeptic asks of an apologists, like the one that has generated these comments, touch on an important but usually unspoken subtext.
Skeptical question: Why don't you recognize these obvious problems in an argument you say is intrinsic to your belief? Skeptic question subtext: "Is it possible that you have invested a great portion of your life to a mistaken belief, and that your group has collectively fooled itself, and that you are only just now coming to terms with the fact that not only you, but those with whom you have interacted and revered, have all been fooling yourselves?"
Apologists can't seriously entertain the subtext that is inherent to the question, and that is why they are apologists.
It is apparently taboo to point this out; I don't think it should be.
The only question that's on the table: "Could you be wrong that there must be a god, and that none of the arguments demonstrate that a god-like deity exists, and that you and a large percentage of the population are all wrong about your god-beliefs?"
Every apologist with whom I've ever interacted obviously cannot answer the question with a simple, "Yes." Not one.
And that is why apologists remain apologists. Everything else they talk about is a diversion from the simple fact that they cannot answer the question above with a "Yes."
Which is not to say that Stardusty's re-posting of the problems (for the umpteenth time, in a way that not one apologist has shown here he can even grasp, let alone rebut) of the First Way is not the primary issue here, but that there is a fundamental dishonesty inherent in those who pretend here (apologists) that they are even capable of or interested in reviewing the argument. They are not.
If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series" for instance and the internet cranks' understanding, one will find the Wikipedia description apt.
Cranks..
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, 2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology, 3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
Internet cranks can not produce scholarly evidence for the definitions they make up and are apparently loud and proud of that fact. The world is blind and only they can see.
The lastest bloviation demonstrates #2
"2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important."
You are the most recent, but not the only, theist to use the fallacy of equivocation to misrepresent 2d.
Just because I am such a very helpful guy I will trim this down to the sentences that become gibberish when one avoids the fallacy of equivocation by using act = exist consistently, and not just in one phrase of one sentence as apologists have attempted in applying this to one phrase in 2d
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in existence.[10] c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence. d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to existence, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in existence. i. For example, an existent burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in existence, and in this way the wood is moved and altered. e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in existence and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense. i. That, in effect, which is existent burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold.
Use of the definition act = exists turns all those lines to gibberish, and the whole argument thus becomes rubbish.
bmiller: "If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series" for instance and the internet cranks' understanding, one will find the Wikipedia description apt."
We get it; you were homeschooled.
bmiller: "Internet cranks can not produce scholarly evidence for the definitions they make up and are apparently loud and proud of that fact. The world is blind and only they can see."
We get it; you were homeschooled.
bmiller: "The lastest bloviation demonstrates #2 / "2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important." "
On the contrary; you can't imagine how unimportant we think the First Way is. Sic.
I think we have now a complete demonstration of all 4 of the defining characteristics of internet cranks:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Our cranks ignore scholarly articles explaining the First Way as well as the terminology used.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Our cranks just can't stop posting about their crank theories even while telling us how unimportant it is.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Our cranks can't admit they're wrong even when the sources they cite tell them they're wrong.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Our cranks, after having it explained to them for 690+ postings, still can't repeat back to their opponents anything but a cranky strawman version of the Fist Way argument.
bmiller: "If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series"
Thanks Cal, I didn't catch that little gem, very humorous, good for a little chuckle.
"in act"...well, just go couple posts up to March 12, 2017 2:42 PM and it is obvious that the supposed definition of the "scholars" renders the cited lines into total garbage.
"motion"...that's rich coming from our resident liar who has yet to produce his asserted example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing. Nobody can come up with any sort of change that is not a physical positional change either.
""essentially ordered series" "...that's a laugh riot, as though any serious study of causation uses such archaic language. I will refer anybody who is interested to "Against Measurement" by J S Bell as one starting point, and ask them to tell me where modern scholars find any use whatsoever for Aristotelian/Thomist language in modern discussions of causality.
Cal "We get it; you were homeschooled" You think? Well, maybe. A lot of homeschooling is done for religious reasons and that would indeed explain the scientific ignorance if the parents were anti-science theists.
Maybe he went to Liberty University or some other crackpot institution.
Readers should notice a particular characteristic of our cranks. They abandon rational discourse and then complain when that fact is pointed out.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Our cranks accused a poster of lying here and here for only 2 examples among many (apparently cranks think they also have mind reading skills). When it was shown that were wrong here they merely ignored it and continued the false accusations. Was there an apology when the libel was pointed out? Nope. A perfect example of #3.
How interesting then, the temper tantrum and indignation that ensues when their behavior is accurately documented and categorized as "cranky". In Crank-world somehow posting the truth is considered "shabby" while cranks think it acceptable to libel their opponents. Perhaps the truth hurts if one is not open to it.
Readers should also note, it is not our job to change people's hearts with argumentation. We can only point out error where we see it. Only God can provide the grace to change hearts.
bmiller: "Readers should notice a particular characteristic of our cranks. They abandon rational discourse and then complain when that fact is pointed out."
Apologists like yourself have yet to rationally engage with the obvious problems pointed out in the First Way here. One can read anywhere among these comments and that becomes quickly evident.
bmiller: "Our cranks accused a poster of lying here and here for only 2 examples among many (apparently cranks think they also have mind reading skills). When it was shown that were wrong here they merely ignored it and continued the false accusations. Was there an apology when the libel was pointed out? Nope. A perfect example of #3."
Your links don't work. Oh, and you're deluded.
bmiller: "How interesting then, the temper tantrum and indignation that ensues when their behavior is accurately documented and categorized as "cranky"."
Your links don't work. And you're deluded.
bmiller: "In Crank-world somehow posting the truth is considered "shabby" while cranks think it acceptable to libel their opponents. Perhaps the truth hurts if one is not open to it."
You keep repeating yourself, but fail to rationally engage with the problems described in the First Way, the argument you purport to be defending. You are deluded.
Cal, Do you have any clue what is going on with this bmiller?
I have encountered some odd behavior on the internet, but I do not recall anything quite this strange.
I have attempted again and again to refocus on the OP. A few theists have made some half baked and scattered attempts to defend that deeply and obviously flawed analysis, but in the face of my repeated and lengthy rational refutations of their unsound attempts they just go silent.
This bmiller just keeps yammering away about nothing related to the specific argumentation of the OP.
WTF?
I mean, at least the Boston guy make some poor attempt at a partial logical defense before he quit in pathetic sputterings. And LoL tried for a bit but it seems the cat got his tongue too.
The host won't get on his own theistic blog and bring some semblance of rational discourse to this topic.
All we have left is some weird character bmiller who is utterly incapable of addressing the OP in anything remotely resembling rational argumentation.
I suppose all we can do is guess some poor deluded individual.
Everything you say is demonstrably true, and I have said as much, but is it any worth repeating it? For the last 100 comments or more, there was nothing but accusations being flown around. What is the point of pursuing this? As Aristotle observed that:
"Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."
There is no rational discourse to be had with these ignorant idiots. Furthermore, as Bernard Shaw (an atheist, just in case this tidbit matters) also observed:
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
" For the last 100 comments or more, there was nothing but accusations being flown around." Demonstrably false March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
" What is the point of pursuing this? " I keep thinking one of you theists might actually begin to display some ability to engage in a rational, consistent, and thorough examination of the OP. So far none of you have.
I keep riposting the analysis of the OP in various forms. All I get in return is a few scattered pot shots at bits and pieces of it, and when I use sound rational argumentation to refute those poor attempts the theist in question either goes silent or starts throwing out bizarre off topic comments.
" there are people whom one cannot instruct." Indeed, so far all theists here have displayed a lack of knowledge in physics as well as an inability to follow an argument consistently and accurately.
That would require that you read and understand the above posts, for example, and that you apply sound rational argumentation to the logical points made therein.
In over 700 posts no theist has displayed that capacity.
I think that I know what goes on with bmiller, and with some others on this blog and similar ones strewn throughout the internets.
Like many apologists, bmiller seems to suffer from a pathology that includes narcissism, cowardice, and ignorance.
He is manifestly ignorant of a basic knowledge that you and I take for granted -- chiefly, he doesn't understand the underpinnings of scientific thinking. One can see that in the way he tries to fluff up his delivery of terms where he loses confidence -- he adds in extra words, like "scientific" in front of evidence, etc. He thinks that science (and knowledge) is about being granted authority and power, and he wants that, but he doesn't understand or like the part where science and knowledge are provisional and contingent. He doesn't want to know things; he wants to have authority.
He is cowardly in that he seems to constantly project his own obvious failings onto others, and like all apologists, won't admit that he can't even conceive of a world in which there is no god (and himself the special snowflake within it). Apologists pretend to approach the topic that they invite (god) with intellectual detachment, but they lack the courage to consider the question in the only way it can be considered -- without the premise that a god must exist.
Completing this troika is the other common thread of apologetics, and that we see on display here: narcissism. His obscure rantings make no sense, but bmiller struggles to recognize that because narcissists are so bad at intersubjectivity. bmiller just can't imagine that his internal monologue falls flat with an audience that doesn't see him the way he alone envisions himself. Narcissists are bad at communication, and they are also bad at thinking scientifically -- it's hard to understand the world when you can't adopt a stance of intersubjectivity, as opposed to indulging in self-involvement and the affirmation of sycophants.
So, that explains it for me.
As I think I've mentioned before, I don't enjoy the company of apologists, but I do enjoy engaging with them. And that's because I think their pathological thinking illuminates the interplay of forces that we all contend with to some degree, but that don't rise to the sort of broken behavior exhibited by the likes of bmiller.
Stardusty: "That would require that you read and understand the above posts, for example, and that you apply sound rational argumentation to the logical points made therein. / In over 700 posts no theist has displayed that capacity."
I think that skeptics are always at a kind of disadvantage in their interactions with apologists because we fundamentally approach the discussion to be one about rationality, whereas the apologist approaches it as a means to achieve respect and authority.
For skeptics, the discussion is over what is most likely correct. For apologists, the discussion is about implying that they possess valuable knowledge.
That dynamic explains pretty much every encounter I've ever had with apologists. It predicts most of the discussion, and it also makes me waaay less frustrated by the outcome. We'll never change their minds, but at the very least we can make their silly notions appear as ridiculous as they truly are.
There are 2 verses in Proverbs that are relevant here: Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
26:5 refers to someone who has a capacity to understand, while 26:4 refers to someone that lacks that capacity. Although I had hoped we were dealing with the former, I'm convinced now that we are dealing with the later. I will follow your advice and Proverbs 26:4.
"I don't enjoy the company of apologists, but I do enjoy engaging with them."
You enjoy living a godless life in a western culture heavily influenced by Christian apologists. In a manner of speaking you enjoy biting the hand that feeds you.
stevek: "You enjoy living a godless life in a western culture heavily influenced by Christian apologists. In a manner of speaking you enjoy biting the hand that feeds you."
You enjoy living in a secular world that benefits extravagantly from the products of scientific thinking and the rejection of silly notions like the First. Way. In a manner of speaking you have little idea how much you benefit from the rejection of superstitious thinking.
" But what does this have to do with the First Way?"
It is a diversion. We live in a post truth, post fact era. The alt-right has subverted the presidency and the pre-existing infection of theistic irrationality now has fresh agar to spread upon.
Boston Strong is mentally weak, like the other theists here, for example this: grodrigues said...
" For the last 100 comments or more, there was nothing but accusations being flown around." Demonstrably false March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
No theist here has demonstrated the slightest mental capacity, IQ, education, focus, or whatever it takes to carefully, consistently, logically, and rationally address the logical argumentation in those 4 posts, or any similar such posts.
The Boston Weakling made a half baked attempt and fizzled out, as all theists do.
I am an atheist heavyweight in the ring with theistic amateur bantam weights. One hand behind my back and one easy punch to the brain and the Boston Weakling is on his back blubbering and babbling, while I stand still not even breaking a sweat wondering if there is anybody who can even stand in the ring with me.
Stardusty: "I am an atheist heavyweight in the ring with theistic amateur bantam weights. One hand behind my back and one easy punch to the brain and the Boston Weakling is on his back blubbering and babbling, while I stand still not even breaking a sweat wondering if there is anybody who can even stand in the ring with me."
This is all obvious.
But it then invites these questions: Why isn't this enough? What prevents some people from thinking rationally (enough)? What are the techniques that enable those who are deluded on a topic adopt a consistent, rational stance?
" What are the techniques that enable those who are deluded on a topic adopt a consistent, rational stance?"
Repeated exposure to consistent rationality in others. The realization within the individual that he or she is approaching life with a divided mind, using great mental skills to be successful in education and business, yet not applying those same skills to the subject of god and our origins.
Most atheists start out as theists because we are taught as children to believe in god. For the atheist the desire to be consistently rational eventually overcomes this superstitious miseducation.
Change happens over time, in increments, with repetition. Sam Harris once put out a podcast lamenting that none of the folks he debated ever changed their minds in real time. That is unrealistic. In truth the process is one of small corrections to various details that are realized to be irrational. Eventually the accumulation of these small changes leads to a tipping point to a new position, although not necessarily to anti-theism all in one step.
Some noted atheists used to be Christians such as Matt Dillahunty and Dan Barker.
"No, those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way. Reading skills. You don't know the distinction? The title of the OP there is "So you think you understand the cosmological argument? " FFS."
" Facepalm.
When one thought this could not get any more idiotic..."
Indeed. The cosmological argument is intended to be modernized in order to avoid the glaring defects of logically invalid arguments such as the First Way.
The link provided to that Feser drivel does nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way, rather, it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is.
These flaws are explained here March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
You have shown no mental capacity, IQ, training in logical discourse, thoroughness, or ability to systematically analyze a set of rational statements as is required to address these glaring defects I have pointed out in detail.
Hint: "facepalm" and "idiotic" are not logical refutations.
Me: For skeptics, the discussion is over what is most likely correct. For apologists, the discussion is about implying that they possess valuable knowledge. "
Stardusty: "March 12, 2017 9:25 AM / March 12, 2017 9:27 AM / March 12, 2017 9:28 AM / March 12, 2017 10:10 AM"
grod: "Facepalm. / When one thought this could not get any more idiotic..."
For readers who didn't read or ignored the very first comment on this topic and did not click the link to the Summa Contra Gentiles:
"[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
I am going to break my own advice to you, so apologies for that.
@Stardusty Psyche:
Your claim in March 17, 2017 4:03 PM was that "those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way", and that bmiller lacked basic reading skills to miss that much when linking the post. But as anyone that has read it can tell very easily, it is you that lack basic reading skills -- as in, you have not even read it. Now, implicitly acknowledging that the one who cannot read is you, you change the claim to:
"The link provided to that Feser drivel does nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way, rather, it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is."
So now, Feser's "drivel" does "nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way", but instead, "it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is". Once again, anyone reading the article knows that this is simply false. For the simple reason that Feser *explicitly says* that, and I quote: "I’m not going to present and defend any version of the cosmological argument here. I’ve done that at length in my books 'Aquinas' and 'The Last Superstition', and it needs to be done at length rather than in the context of a blog post." So no, he does not seek "to reword the argument" in any way, shape or form; he does not even "present" it in the post, much less "defend it".
He does that in his books. And what arguments does Feser defend in 'Aquinas'? The Five Ways. I have the book in front of me, opened in chapter 3. What arguments does Feser defend in 'The Last Superstition'? The First, the Second and the Fifth Way. Book also opened in front of me. So Feser takes the First Way as an instance of the genus "cosmological argument" (which as anyone knows, is not a particular argument but a family of arguments sharing structural features), from which it follows that the listed misunderstandings all apply to the First Way. Which was the point of bmiller's referencing to it in the first place, something that not only you denied, but even went to the point of suggesting that bmiller lacked basic reading skills since he so egregiously misread Feser's point.
Here is a quote from 'The Last Superstition', Chapter 3, Section A, pg. 93:
"Now an accidentally ordered series, like the fathers begetting sons who beget more sons (and indeed like the countless other causal series familiar from everyday experience that extend backwards in time), could, in Aquinas' view, in theory go back forever into the past. He doesn't think any such series does in fact go back forever, but he also doesn't think it can be *proved* through philosophical arguments that they don't. That is to say, he doesn't think it can be proved, and doesn't try to prove, that the universe had a beginning."
But of course Feser's "drivel" must also be wrong; after all, Stardusty knows the First Way better than Aquinas himself, so a fortiori, he knows better than Feser as well.
To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. But that you are this unbelievably ignorant idiot, lack the most elementary reading skills and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag. Demonstrated innumerable times about basically everything, whether it is mathematics, physics or the First Way. The reason why it is pointless to argue with you is not because you are an "atheist heavy weight", but the prototypical crank, a sad, pathetic delusional kook laboring under the pretense that he has anything remotely interesting or relevant to say about the First Way. What you need is not rational argumentation, or knowledge (though you have none), but psychiatric help. And prayers.
Grod: "To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. "
Actually, that is precisely the point of these posts.
But, because you are an apologist, you would like to avoid discussion of the actual deficiencies of the First Way, and instead imply that you possess some valuable knowledge.
Because, I suppose, that is all that apologists can do.
"Because, I suppose, that is all that apologists can do."
And this is all that an intellectual fraud of an apologist for atheism like you can do. We should at least cut some slack to Stardusty since he is the prototypical example of a crank and a kook. You? The less said the better.
" So now, Feser's "drivel" does "nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way", but instead, "it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is"." Indeed, I am spot on with that statement, thanks for repeating it.
"Feser *explicitly says* that, and I quote: "I’m not going to present and defend any version of the cosmological argument here." Yes, nor does he do anything to justify the glaring defects in the First Way. That post simply does not provide argumentation on those issues, which is what I said, thanks for demonstrating my words to be accurate.
"So no, he does not seek "to reword the argument" in any way," Of course he does. Modern cosmological arguments are re-wordings of deeply flawed arguments such as the First Way, in tacit recognition of the logical invalidity of those medieval wordings.
" shape or form; he does not even "present" it in the post, much less "defend it"." He defends it in 9 points and he presents it by inference to what he apparently assumes is well known language he can defend without explicitly stating. Did you even read the post? If so...reading skills.
" He does that in his books. And what arguments does Feser defend in 'Aquinas'? The Five Ways. I have the book in front of me, opened in chapter 3. What arguments does Feser defend in 'The Last Superstition'? The First, the Second and the Fifth Way." That is in a book, not in the post. He might address the First Way with argumentation in a book, but not in this post.
"suggesting that bmiller lacked basic reading skills since he so egregiously misread Feser's point." You both lack the reading skill of knowing the difference between the post and a book. The post defends the cosmological argument and does nothing to address the glaring defects in the First Way.
"Now an accidentally ordered series, like the fathers begetting sons who beget more sons (and indeed like the countless other causal series familiar from everyday experience that extend backwards in time), could, in Aquinas' view, in theory go back forever into the past. He doesn't think any such series does in fact go back forever, but he also doesn't think it can be *proved* through philosophical arguments that they don't. That is to say, he doesn't think it can be proved, and doesn't try to prove, that the universe had a beginning." Just that motion had a beginning. So what? Aquinas fails miserably as I have pointed out in great detail.
" But of course Feser's "drivel" must also be wrong; after all, Stardusty knows the First Way better than Aquinas himself," Indeed I do, but only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
" so a fortiori, he knows better than Feser as well." Yes, Feser argues incorrectly.
" To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. But that you are this unbelievably ignorant idiot, lack the most elementary reading skills and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag. " Fine, then by all means do provide a detailed, consistent, rational, valid, and sound refutation of my argumentation in March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I.
After all, you have a whole book on the subject by Feser. Surely he addressed all my objections. All you need do is read Feser and paste his refutations into the appropriate places. Should be easy for you.
"It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
Your claim in March 17, 2017 4:03 PM was that "those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way", and that bmiller lacked basic reading skills to miss that much when linking the post? Responded to. Your claim in March 17, 2017 11:12 PM? Responded to. And this is why it is pointless to argue with you, because not only the most elementary reasoning flies by you, you are so arrogant and blind (as is typical of cranks and kooks) that you do not have the humility to recognize your abysmal ignorance or your howlers on factual matters that can be easily checked. The claim "That is in a book, not in the post. He might address the First Way with argumentation in a book, but not in this post" is just the typical mind-numbingly, point-missing, stupid rot that you spew. The point of the post bmiller linked to was not to address the First Way or any specific version of the cosmological argument and defend it, as Feser himself explicitly says, but to list typical misunderstandings of cosmological arguments, and why exactly they are misunderstandings. Or in his own words: "I will deal here with some of the non-serious objections, though. In particular, what follows is intended to clear away some of the intellectual rubbish that prevents many people from giving the argument a fair hearing." "Intellectual rubbish" is exactly right, as recognized by anyone that has read even a smidge on the matter, whether he agrees that the arguments ultimately work or not. And this can be perfectly done without presenting any version of the cosmological argument in particular because cosmological arguments share certain structural features.
And here is one more quote:
"Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning."
*All scholars know* and this is exactly right, whether they think an argument like the First Way works or not. So by all means go on repeating all these very same misunderstandings like the unhinged idiot and delusional kook that you are. As I have already said more than once, rational argumentation with you is pointless, what you need is psychiatric help. And prayers.
I've come to the conclusion that if certain people have not made an effort to read any of the responses offered or ignored them, there is no reason to think they will actually read anything you or I link or quote now.
When we refer to the writings of professors of philosophy and they consider it "home schooling" you can't really expect much from them.
However, I think it serves a purpose to continue to post for the benefit of others that may honestly be interested.
Grod: " To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. But that you are this unbelievably ignorant idiot, lack the most elementary reading skills and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag." Stardusty: "Fine, then by all means do provide a detailed, consistent, rational, valid, and sound refutation of my argumentation in March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
Why won't any apologists ever meaningfully address the refutations offered by Stardusty in the comments here, the ones that he's cited back to many times? Why won't apologists respond to any of the other substantive points raised in the comments here over and over and over?
Is it because apologists can only pretend that they are in possession of some valuable knowledge, even though they can never, ever articulate it when asked for?
bmiller: "I've come to the conclusion that if certain people have not made an effort to read any of the responses offered or ignored them, there is no reason to think they will actually read anything you or I link or quote now."
You lack the discipline, knowledge, and acuity to even address the points raised by Stardusty. And that is why all you can do is imply that you are in possession of some valuable knowledge, and that is why you can never actually articulate what this knowledge is. You can only imply that it lies somewhere else in a way that is so vague as to avoid scrutiny, while pretending that it provides what you cannot.
bmiller: "When we refer to the writings of professors of philosophy and they consider it "home schooling" you can't really expect much from them."
Reading comprehension. Every time I've raised home-schooling here, it is in reference to you, and your ignorance of basic scientific principles, and your lack of critical thinking skills, and your obvious insecurity over your poor education.
grod: "The point of the post bmiller linked to was not to address the First Way or any specific version of the cosmological argument and defend it, as Feser himself explicitly says, but to list typical misunderstandings of cosmological arguments, and why exactly they are misunderstandings. "
Then you should agree that bmiller's are irrelevant to the criticisms offered here. The ones that shouldn't be hard to avoid, even though you keep on avoiding them, because the reference to them keeps on getting pasted here for you, like this:
Stardusty: "Fine, then by all means do provide a detailed, consistent, rational, valid, and sound refutation of my argumentation in March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
You should try and focus on the fact that we're talking about the First Way here, per the OP. We're talking about the criticisms of the First Way offered here, and the inability of apologists to form a coherent rebuttal of the stated criticisms.
We're seeing, over and over and over, the fact that all that apologists can do is pretend that they possess some valuable knowledge instead of articulating that knowledge in the way in which arguments are analyzed.
Notice the difference in fluency between Stardusty's criticisms of the First Way, which engages with particulars of the First Way and how those particulars related to the argument as a whole, and the inability of the apologists here to do anything but handwave, divert, complain, and insult.
The difference is obvious, and the chasm between the two approaches is vast.
"It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
" Your claim in March 17, 2017 4:03 PM was that "those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way", and that bmiller lacked basic reading skills to miss that much when linking the post? Responded to. " Not meaningfully.
"Your claim in March 17, 2017 11:12 PM? Responded to." Not meaningfully.
" And this is why it is pointless to argue with you, because not only the most elementary reasoning flies by you, you are so arrogant and blind (as is typical of cranks and kooks) that you do not have the humility to recognize your abysmal ignorance or your howlers on factual matters that can be easily checked." Such as? You have not corrected any of my supposed factual errors.
" The claim "That is in a book, not in the post. He might address the First Way with argumentation in a book, but not in this post" is just the typical mind-numbingly, point-missing, stupid rot that you spew. The point of the post bmiller linked to was not to address the First Way" Ok, then we agree, bmiller was mistaken here: bmiller said... For those interested some common misunderstandings of the First Way can be found: here March 17, 2017 3:19 PM
" "Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning."" Which does nothing to address the glaringly invalid logic and unsound argumentation of the First Way as I have pointed out in detail.
" So by all means go on repeating all these very same misunderstandings like the unhinged idiot and delusional kook that you are. " Then it should be easy to provide argumentation, but you are just name calling.
"I've come to the conclusion that if certain people have not made an effort to read any of the responses offered or ignored them, there is no reason to think they will actually read anything you or I link or quote now."
Oh I agree completely. I prove by extensive quotation that Stardusty is wrong on a fairly simple factual matter. Response? That I did not respond "meaningfully". Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain. And it is likewise pointless to hurl even more epithets (something that I did in my last post and deleted) -- truthful, but again, all pretty pointless and a waste of time.
" So by all means go on repeating all these very same misunderstandings like the unhinged idiot and delusional kook that you are. " March 18, 2017 1:43 PM
Say there g, since I am such and unhinged idiot and delusional kook I will make it real easy for you folks.
4a of the OP cites the premise of "U", which is used in 4 to conclude "~I". 5 then uses "~I" to conclude "U". Thus U -> ~I ~I -> U Aquinas fails already by begging the question. (see March 12, 2017 9:28 AM)
2d clearly states a particular kind of change cannot be caused except by something changing in the same way. Thus a hot thing makes a potentially hot thing hot. Attempts were made to interpret "act" as "existent", but only in 1 phrase of 1 sentence. If that is true than Aquinas fails by the fallacy of equivocation.
If, instead "act=existent" is applied uniformly to avoid equivocation the sentences become meaningless nonsense such as "c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence." To avoid equivocation Aquinas becomes babble. (see March 12, 2017 2:42 PM)
That leaves the obvious meaning of 2d, only a moving thing causes motion, which is reinforced in the example of 4b with the moving cane, moved only by a hand, which is of course moving, since one never observes a stationary hand moving a cane.
Yet, with this very reasonable statement in 2d Aquinas proceeds to contradict himself regarding the first mover, "U". The first mover contradicts the premises of the argument! Thus, Aquinas fails by self contradiction. (see March 12, 2017 9:27 AM)
Perhaps most obvious is the omission of both "G" and "E" from the notation of the OP. (see March 12, 2017 9:28 AM)
Aquinas is arguing for the existence of god, not an understanding of "U". God, not some inanimate superstuff that gave rise to our observable universe. Specifically god.
Yet the OP omits this critical stage of the argument from his notation, probably because it is logically indefensible, Aquinas failing with statements merely ad hoc, non sequitur, and factually false just to get from an unmoved mover to an understanding of that unmoved mover.
Aquinas fails further to explicitly state his conclusion, "therefore god exists", perhaps from embarrassment at having presented such a deeply fallacious, disjointed, and demonstrably false argument.
Oh, but I am just an unhinged idiot and delusional kook so I am confident it will be very easy for every theist here to go step by step using thorough rational argumentation that logically refutes all my findings above.
The First Way is a demonstration of only one aspect of God, namely the aspect of being Unmoved Mover. It does not seek to demonstrate other attributes of God.
However, one may ask 'if God is unchanging, then how can he, for instance will something, since that would be a change?'. This question is addressed in another section of the Summa Theologica (which is for students of theology). However, it is addressed the same section of the Summa Contra Gentiles that was linked in the very first comment on this blog post Book 1, Chapter 13, article 10 (Also referenced in the OP) also linked in the first comment:
[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle.
So, the movement or change referred to in the First Way is explicitly the movement of divisible bodies. This is a further deduction that can be made from the conclusion of the First Way although it is not actually part of the proof.
"Oh, but I am just an unhinged idiot and delusional kook..." That is the correct conclusion one reaches when they read your comments leading up to this.
ng the various restatements of the First Way and examining how Aquinas intended to present the argument in his own words we can clear up some misunderstandings. For instance, here are the first 4 articles in the link from the Summa Contra Gentiles above:
[1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists.
[2] We shall first set forth the arguments by which Aristotle proceeds to prove that God exists. The aim of Aristotle is to do this in two ways, beginning with motion.
[3] Of these ways the first is as follows. Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
[4] In this proof, there are two propositions that need to be proved, namely, that everything that is moved is moved by another, and that in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity.
From this second rendering of the First Way (intended for those who were not theology students) we can see a couple of things. One thing is that this version is more concise and contains the propositions with a minimum of support for the propositions. The support is provided in the following articles. The second thing to notice is that Aquinas lists 2 main propositions for the argument just like the OP states: For example, under premises 2 and 4 Aquinas provides support for the content of these premises. Though the support does not belong to the argument as such,
The OP also credits Francisco Romero Carrasquillo with the logical proof from this site: http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html P1-A: Some things are in motion (m). P2-A: If some things are in motion (m), then they are put in motion by another (a). C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another (a).
[P1-B: If they are put in motion by another (a), then either this goes on to infinity (i) or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f).] P2-B: They are put in motion by another (a). C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity (i) or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f)
P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity (i) or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f) P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity (~ i). C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f).
So the logical proof follows Aquinas in providing support of his 2 major premises in order to reach his conclusion.
bmiller: "The First Way is a demonstration of only one aspect of God, namely the aspect of being Unmoved Mover. It does not seek to demonstrate other attributes of God. "
Congratulations. You have just discovered the incredibly obvious -- that the First Way does not show that deity exists. In the same way that a burning fire does not demonstrate the existence of dragons.
The First Way fails in other ways, but I am glad to see that you have (finally!) discovered that even were the prior argumentation valid, the conclusion of the First Way is hopelessly ad hoc.
Is the phrase "this everyone calls God" properly part of the First Way argument or is it merely showing that Aristotle's argument concludes in the classical definition of God?
This post explained the differences between the Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles wrt to the phrases: "this everyone calls God" ST "This we call God." SCG February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
That post explains that while the ST was written for believing theology students (thus the "everyone" in that context was "everyone" taking the class), the SCG was written for non-believers so the wording changed from everyone to "we". The "we" referring to article 1 of chapter 13 of Book 1 being philosopher and Catholic teachers: [1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists.
So Aquinas did not consider the phrases are not part of the proof, but merely to indicate the this conclusion was in line with what philosophers and Catholic teachers have used to prove the existence of God.
bmiller: "So Aquinas did not consider the phrases are not part of the proof, but merely to indicate the this conclusion was in line with what philosophers and Catholic teachers have used to prove the existence of God."
Oh, so the real argument that supposedly shows that god exists isn't the First Way? Somebody should tell Legion, whose challenge initiated these discussions. I think you should break it to him.
After all this, why are we wasting our time with the First Way if it doesn't do what apologists said that it does -- show that deity must exist?
And why do the arguments for the existence of god always seem to lie elsewhere, never where they're actually needed? Why can't anyone spell them out, but only refer to some other vague location that never actually does what apologists first claim?
Do you suppose anyone should wonder about why that is?
How does any of that rebut the refutations of the First Way offered by Stardusty, and referenced so many times above?
Because your comment seems to ignore the refutation offered by Stardusty, and simply repeat the same assertions that have already been refuted.
Do you understand that repeating a claim after that claim has been refuted is not considered a rebuttal?
Do you understand that declaring that you remain convinced by a bad argument -- one that has been shown to be fallacious only confirms that you are easy to fool?
Do you think, for example, that finding someone who will repeat the circular assertion that has been pointed out (refuted) many times here in many ways -- "P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity (~ i)." -- only makes it apparent that you don't understand argumentation, and that you seem to think that finding others as foolish as you is how one can demonstrate a claim. As if.
Apologists are easy to fool. We get it.
What we don't ever seem to get is an even basic understanding of how one responds to criticism pointing out the obvious failing of a once pet argument.
SD: "I am confident it will be very easy for every theist here to go step by step using thorough rational argumentation that logically refutes all my findings above."
'Kay.
"Aquinas fails already by begging the question."
You think this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs and know nothing of the difference between per se and per accidens for causal series. The first three premises demonstrate that whatever changes is changed by something else, and that if the agent of change was itself changed, then it was changed by something else, and so on. Having demonstrated a per se causal series, in which the agents of change have themselves undergone change and are operating simultaneously, Aquinas has also demonstrated that these change agents only have causal power as a derivation from something else. Without a first mover, a per se causal series is powerless to change anything, so nothing would happen. A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter.
So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter.
SD: "2d clearly states a particular kind of change cannot be caused except by something changing in the same way. Thus a hot thing makes a potentially hot thing hot. Attempts were made to interpret "act" as "existent", but only in 1 phrase of 1 sentence. If that is true than Aquinas fails by the fallacy of equivocation."
You say this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs and have no idea what "act" and "potential" are according to Aquinas and Aristotle. "Act" is not a verb in this context. To be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. Burning wood is not in act due to burning as a verb, but it is in act because wood has the potential to be in a state of burning, so when that state is achieved, it is in act. Wood that is not burning is also in act, as that is also a potential state that has been realized.
So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter.
SD: "If, instead "act=existent" is applied uniformly to avoid equivocation the sentences become meaningless nonsense such as "c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence." To avoid equivocation Aquinas becomes babble."
Again, you say this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs and have no idea what "act" and "potential" are according to Aquinas and Aristotle. Aquinas defines motion (to move) as nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act. In other words, motion (which every knowledgeable person knows is change in context) is the realization of a potential state. It is a potential becoming a reality. So, your statement "To move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence" is quite right, and is not even remotely babble to anyone who knows what they are talking about - a category of people that does not include you.
SD: "That leaves the obvious meaning of 2d"
2d says "But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act." This is saying "it is impossible for a potential to be realized, unless it is by something that is already realized". If you come up with any other meaning than that, it is due to having no idea what you are talking about, which has been demonstrated countless times in this thread. "Only a changing thing causes change" is not a premise anywhere in the argument. No one who knows anything about Aristotle or Aquinas would agree that "only a changing thing causes change" is a premise of the First Way, or that such a belief is part of Aquinas' or Aristotle's metaphysical beliefs.
(As an aside: The pathetic objection "hurr durr the apologists are saying a rock can make something burn because a rock exists" is so stupid that only a complete idiot could seriously think it is a valid objection. Do you think it is a valid objection? Also, no where in the premises is the idea that something has to share the attributes of the change it is producing - as in, something has to be burning to cause burning. Aquinas addresses both these "objections" elsewhere in his other writings - Feser describes it as the principle of proportionate causality - something you would know if you had any idea what you were talking about.)
SD: "Perhaps most obvious is the omission of both "G" and "E" from the notation of the OP."
I read the OP, and he does not omit this, so I don't know what you are objecting to here.
SD: "Aquinas fails further to explicitly state his conclusion, "therefore god exists", perhaps from embarrassment at having presented such a deeply fallacious, disjointed, and demonstrably false argument."
This is one of the stupidest things you or Cal have said in these threads, and that is highly remarkable.
As a bonus, regarding your post from March 12 at 9:25, you say:
"For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. If this speculated god was motionless and then made a decision it “moved” itself. Even if no decision was made, if the speculated god was motionless and then “moved” in any sense it must have “moved” itself."
God does not make decisions - a benefit to omniscience. God is also outside of the temporal and spatial limitations of physical beings in this universe, so to say "God is here, and then he is there" as a change is not a valid objection. Not to mention that Aquinas devotes hundreds of pages and multiple works in describing exactly WHY these attributes can be assigned to God, when talking about being pure act, not of composite parts, etc.
But then, you know none of that, because you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm sure you'll dismiss these replies as not meaningful, and Cal will come in and heap adoration on you for how reasonable you are and how theism causes all these brain defects. However, rest assured that neither of you has the slightest inkling of how absolutely hilarious your willful ignorance and unjustified arrogance have been to the readers of this thread - assuming any are deranged enough to have read this far.
Cal: "Oh, so the real argument that supposedly shows that god exists isn't the First Way? Somebody should tell Legion, whose challenge initiated these discussions. I think you should break it to him."
When someone understands the argument, in the context of Aquinas' beliefs - a class of people that demonstrably does not include you or Stardusty - then a deity is the only reasonable conclusion. I stand by that.
There are have been lots of commentaries and books on Aquinas, as is to be expected for a philosopher of his importance. I tend to prefer the neo-Scholastic wave coming after the encyclical "Aeterni Patris", and Garrigou-Lagrange above all; he is very thorough, very rigorous, going through it all in painstaking detail. Maybe not for the faint of heart, but definitely worth it if you can slog through it (I suppose this depends a little on temperament; since my training was in mathematics, I tend to value these qualities). His "One God" is a commentary on the first part of the ST containing thorough discussions of the Five Ways and of God's attributes and is, whole or in part, available online.
Dusty believes that if a series is infinite, then that series can magically cause itself to move. Dusty believes that something like an infinitely long paintbrush can cause itself to paint a picture. Dusty believes that something (motion) can come from nothing. Dusty wants us to accept this extraordinary claim by faith without an argument. Dusty claims he is an intellectual heavyweight.
" From this second rendering of the First Way (intended for those who were not theology students) we can see a couple of things. One thing is that this version is more concise "
"Concise" = "Dishonestly edited by modern theologians to remove the more glaring defects of what Aquinas actually wrote"
Of course you can write a better argument if you do not include the actual words of Aquinas. Aquinas wrote an obviously defective argument.
By taking a razor to his words you only prove my point that his words comprise a logically invalid argument.
You cannot logically defend the OP as written so you abandon it for your own language. You are merely putting forth a straw man.
bmiller said... [1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists. March 19, 2017 1:02 PM
bmiller said... So Aquinas did not consider the phrases are not part of the proof, but merely to indicate the this conclusion was in line with what philosophers and Catholic teachers have used to prove the existence of God. March 19, 2017 1:29 PM
You contradict your own quoted words of Aquinas. "We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists."
God. G O D Aquinas states flatly that philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved the existence of G O D.
Not an unnamed and undefined first mover, rather, G O D.
That is why Aquinas added his ad hoc statement of understanding as the last line, because he claimed to "have proved that God exists".
Clearly he failed and you recognize this fact so you present a straw man version of his argument and stop it prematurely at "U" because the full original argument actually made by Aquinas is glaringly invalid and unsound.
'"Concise" = "Dishonestly edited by modern theologians to remove the more glaring defects of what Aquinas actually wrote"'
Ah those Evil Dominican thelogians that "dishonestly" edited out Aquinas' words to expunge "the more glaring defects". Words edited out, that Stardusty, wearing a tin-foil hat and a micro-wave antenna, can divine the true meaning of, better than the author himself and all his commentators combined, by dint of his awesome powers as The "atheist heavyweight".
This is pure comedy gold.
And just a few moments more, we will have apologist for atheism extraordinaire, Mr. Metzger, wearing the verbal equivalent of tight skirts and pompons, cheerleading for this delusional kook.
Pure comedy gold, I tell you.
Who needs anti-depressants with clowns such as these?
Legion: "So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter."
Nope.
The subject matter is reality, and to what extent Aquinas's argument reflects that reality. You and other apologists seem to think that whatever Aquinas write trumps whatever reality is. I would say that this is a childish mistake, but the truth is children aren't so gullible -- only apologists seem to be able to fool themselves in the way that we see on these threads.
Aquinas's argument fails objectively to satisfy the requirements of a good argument. Good arguments are logically valid (don't violate their premises, aren't circular), have sound premises (the premises are testably true), and aren't ad hoc.
You seem to think that the problems above are somehow magically avoided by the peculiar language and descriptions of Aristotlean physics -- that if one can simply categorize things as "per se and per accidens" one can somehow then construct arguments that are circular, that violate their premises, that equivocate, and make ad hoc assertions.
Apologists here are so desperate to gain respect for their childish beliefs that they're rather fetishize medieval physics rather than accept reality. Pathetic.
Here's where you are apparently too stupid to see one of the problems, even though it's staring right at you, and has been pointed out, over and over and over:
Legion: "Without a first mover, a per se causal series is powerless to change anything, so nothing would happen. A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter."
And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely? Because, we are told in the argument, if there weren't, there would be no first mover. And why does does there have to be a first mover? Because if not the series would go to infinity, and if we went to infinity, guess what? Then there would be no fist mover. In other words, the argument simply declares that there must be a first mover because, otherwise (wait for it...) there would no first mover.
The only way that this obvious, glaring deficiency in basic logic can be ignored is if one determines that the words of Aquinas must be preferred over reality and the rules of logic.
grod: "Ah those Evil Dominican thelogians that "dishonestly" edited out Aquinas' words to expunge "the more glaring defects". Words edited out, that Stardusty, wearing a tin-foil hat and a micro-wave antenna, can divine the true meaning of, better than the author himself and all his commentators combined, by dint of his awesome powers as The "atheist heavyweight"."
Hey, dumbass -- we are all among Aquinas's commenters.
Nice try privileging you and your fellow-deluded Aquinas cheerleaders into being the deciders of what makes for a good argument (apparently: if Aquinas wrote it, then it must be true!), but that won't stop the rest of us from pointing out that Aquinas's "arguments" have been relegated to the scrap hear for lo these many centuries for good reason.
To some extent we all offload knowledge onto other sources -- other people, libraries, the internet, our own later investigation, etc. But these discussions have made me more aware that apologists fall prey to the glitz and glam Christian flimflam that was largely exposed through the Reformation -- that apologists think that if the buildings are grand enough, and the high poobahs are sufficiently sartorial, and the hushed tones sufficiently reverent when someone utters the author's name, THEN THAT IS HOW WE KNOW.
Not using our own noggins. But by decoupage. That's what the Aquinas defenders espouse.
Complete incompetence on your part to address the technical issues noted.
Hint: Calling somebody a "delusional kook" is not a logical argument or a logical refutation of an argument, it is a logical fallacy, do you know which one?
SP "Aquinas fails already by begging the question."
" You think this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical ... A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter. So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter." No, it is much simpler than that, as I explained in detail March 12, 2017 9:28 AM C1) U (premise in 4a) C2) U→~I (4a→4) C3) I (premise 4) C4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a)
In short C2) U→~I (4a→4) C4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a)
This is blatant begging the question by the text Aquinas actually wrote. It is just that simple.
SD: "2d clearly states a particular kind of change cannot be caused except by something changing in the same way. Thus a hot thing makes a potentially hot thing hot. Attempts were made to interpret "act" as "existent", but only in 1 phrase of 1 sentence. If that is true than Aquinas fails by the fallacy of equivocation."
" You say this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs" Wrong, I used the word "if". Others here have made this contention, not me. "If" that contention is the case then Aquinas fails by equivocaton
" Wood that is not burning is also in act," It is in some other actualized state, not the actualized state of being hot.
Only an object in the actualized state of being hot can cause an object not in the actualized state of being hot to move to the actualized state of being hot.
That makes common observational sense. That is what we all observe in ordinary life. Only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move. Only a hot thing causes a cold thing to become hot. This is a very reasonable observation from our human perspective.
It also leads to Aquinas failing by self contradiction later in the argument as I detailed in March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
SD: "If, instead "act=existent" is applied uniformly to avoid equivocation the sentences become meaningless nonsense such as "c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence." To avoid equivocation Aquinas becomes babble."
" Again, you say this " No, I don't say this, others have said this here. I said "if". "If" we follow the assertions of others to their uniform application Aquinas becomes babble.
SD: "That leaves the obvious meaning of 2d"
" "Only a changing thing causes change" is not a premise anywhere in the argument. " Of course it is, just read it. The language of the principle is supported by the example of the wood and again by the example of the cane.
A hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to become actually hot.
A cane is moved only by a hand, which is of course moving, since one never observes a motionless hand move a cane.
The principle is plainly stated in argument and by example. It makes sense observationally, and Aquinas is clearly establishing facts about motion based on observation using our senses.
" (As an aside: The pathetic objection "hurr durr the apologists are saying a rock can make something burn because a rock exists" is so stupid that only a complete idiot could seriously think it is a valid objection. " Indeed, the idea that mere existence is sufficient to cause change is absurd.
The idea that any old sort of actuality could cause a particular sort of actuality is so stupid only a complete idiot would hold to such an argument.
Obviously, heat is only caused by a hot thing, and motion is only caused by a moving thing. Other interpretations of 2d are truly idiotic, so we agree.
SD: "Perhaps most obvious is the omission of both "G" and "E" from the notation of the OP."
" I read the OP, and he does not omit this, so I don't know what you are objecting to here." He stops at "U" in his notation. You need to read again.
SD: "Aquinas fails further to explicitly state his conclusion, "therefore god exists", perhaps from embarrassment at having presented such a deeply fallacious, disjointed, and demonstrably false argument."
" This is one of the stupidest things you or Cal have said in these threads, and that is highly remarkable." It is true that Aquinas leaves his stated purpose, to prove god exists, as only an implication of a personal understanding of "U", so merely calling it stupid without support is pointless.
" God does not make decisions - a benefit to omniscience." Then god lacks free will.
" God is also outside of the temporal and spatial limitations of physical beings" Oxymoronic and meaningless babble.
" I'm sure you'll dismiss these replies as not meaningful," Most are simply mistaken. The last bits about god are incoherent.
" Dusty believes that if a series is infinite, then that series can magically cause itself to move. Dusty believes that something like an infinitely long paintbrush can cause itself to paint a picture. Dusty believes that something (motion) can come from nothing. Dusty wants us to accept this extraordinary claim by faith without an argument."
Please cite the post dates and copy my exact words here that support those claims.
" I'll come back if/when the skeptics can give a valid objection to the argument that hasn't already been addressed. Until then, I'm out of here."
Mental weaklings run like cowards in the face of rational argumentation. The Boston Weakling is incapable of following the arguments in detail with step by step careful argumentation. He either lacks the IQ, education, honesty, or rational concentration to do so.
"Nice try privileging you and your fellow-deluded Aquinas cheerleaders into being the deciders of what makes for a good argument (apparently: if Aquinas wrote it, then it must be true!), but that won't stop the rest of us from pointing out that Aquinas's "arguments" have been relegated to the scrap hear for lo these many centuries for good reason."
Oh god, another absolutely idiotic comment. Here we have a delusional kook presenting a conspiracy theory where "modern theologians" have "dishonestly edited" Aquinas' words and you, a complete dumbass of a moron, somehow misreads it as me "privileging" some group as the final arbiters of what makes a good argument. Such stupidity is so rare and deep, that I am in awe. Tell me, how does it feel to be a moron? Do you hear the sound of the angry wind rattling in your empty skull?
@Stardusty Psyche:
"Complete incompetence on your part to address the technical issues noted."
The fact that you miss the responses -- which have been given by many people, many times, over the course of hundreds of comments -- is simply the demonstrably true fact that you are a moron with the IQ of a dead gerbil. You would not know "competence" if it bit your nose off. "Not meaningful" was your latest response, to a factual matter that can be easily checked by reading the linked post, and is an accurate index of the ignorant idiot that you are, living in a fantasy land where you are some sort of "atheist heavyweight" in the ring of rational argumentation. But do continue, oh please do. Your performances combine at the same time the hilarious ignorant stupidity and arrogant hubris of a buffoon, that one would be ungrateful to such a comedic gift not to laugh in your face.
@Stardusty Psyche: "Complete incompetence on your part to address the technical issues noted."
" The fact that you miss the responses" Nope, I respond in detail to every post of any substance that is addressed to me. If you can find a counter example please cite that oversight and I will correct it by responding to it.
Note, you again provide no specifics, no link, no example, just an empty accusation.
Ironic you show complete incompetence to address the technical issues in a post contesting my assertion of that property to you.
" -- which have been given by many people, many times, over the course of hundreds of comments --" Mostly insubstantial (such as this post of yours) although a few have made some efforts to provide actual argumentation. Invariably I quickly show that argumentation to be unsound and the individual then goes silent or blurts out a pointless ad hominem. Alternatively the individual ironically agrees with me without even realizing such, and when I point that out the typical response is silence.
" You would not know "competence" if it bit your nose off." A competent reply must at least provide a logical, step by step, evidence based, rational argument on topic. So far you have provided no such thing to my very detailed arguments showing the First Way to be logically invalid.
But by all means, give it a go. I mean, your posts are full of personal vitriol, but thus far lack any substantial logical argumentation. You certainly have been completely lacking in any capacity to engage in a sustained on-topic discussion of a particular logical sequence, say the begging the question fallacy, or the self contradiction fallacy, or the ad hoc fallacy.
Thanks for the tip on Garrigou-Lagrange's "One God". I'll look it up.
It seems that a lot of people struggle with the concept of act and potency and I've been looking for something less than book length to link to. I did come across this from Garrigou-Lagrange: http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality6.php from "REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought", but as you mention he goes into great detail and it is probably too much to introduce someone new to the idea.
BTW folks, I just realized I typographically omitted a tilde in one position in several posts.
Fortunately, this typographic omission has no effect on my arguments because it is included correctly before and after that position, so the arguments flow correctly, but one line is not symbolized correctly.
Apparently the folks here either did not read it, or understand the argument, or were just too busy attributing various ad hominems to me to actually understand the importance of that negation symbol.
Oh how crushingly dreadful it is to discover that I am all of these things: moron with the IQ of a dead gerbil ignorant idiot buffoon unhinged idiot delusional kook tilde dropper
But then, none of my detractors even noticed this error, so what does that make them?
Of course, due credit should be given for the astutely cited association between my brain and the brain a a dead rodent. Superlative rational argumentation indeed, highly commendable and admirable to say the very least.
"Of course, due credit should be given for the astutely cited association between my brain and the brain a a dead rodent. Superlative rational argumentation indeed, highly commendable and admirable to say the very least."
" http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality6.php from "REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought", "
The link is a confused and vague mess.
Of course it is, it attempts to explain Aristotelian notions of physics and causality.
Aristotle was wrong. Try to get that straight, OK?
I use the vernacular of "act", "potency" and various asserted sorts of causality only as a doctor uses layman's terms, or as an adult uses the vocabulary of the child he is communicating with.
The link gives some vague drivel about various definitions of "potency" but does not really define "act" explicitly. It is left to the reader to absorb paragraph after paragraph of vague confused fuzzy nonsense until the reader has some cloudy affinity for this foolishness.
No serious study of causality uses Aristotle, "act" and "potency". That would be like studying astronomy using Ptolemy and epicycles.
But by all means, give it a go. Anybody, can you boil down that confused ancient nonsense in the link to some concise definitions of what "act" and "potency" supposedly are?
With apologists, why is the answer always in some vague and uncheckable somewhere else, instead of right here on the page, where it would actually do some good?
--------
Do you apologists ever wonder why it is those like Stardusty and myself can seemingly instantly assimilate the gist of comments (even when they are mostly or entirely nonsense), and respond to them directly and cogently? I imagine that this must seem almost magical to you all.
Do you know what the trick is? We're merely applying critical thinking to the concepts being discussed, and responding to them by applying straightforward principles like consistency and the rules of argument. Once you start to adopt that approach, instead of one which demands a haphazard and ad hoc approach, responding is easy and fun.
Plus it might make you all a little less cranky. Evidently, being an apologist is just kind of a struggle.
Cal: "You and other apologists seem to think that whatever Aquinas write trumps whatever reality is."
I've skipped multiple comments since I've been gone, but to my knowledge, none of us have done anything remotely resembling this, so I'm going to chalk it up as yet another instance of an ignorant and arrogant atheist projecting his own intellectual failures onto his opponents.
Cal: "Aquinas's argument fails objectively to satisfy the requirements of a good argument. Good arguments are logically valid (don't violate their premises, aren't circular), have sound premises (the premises are testably true), and aren't ad hoc."
We have demonstrated at length that every single objection you two have raised is flawed. It is not our fault that neither of you possesses the intellectual honesty to allow a chink in your close-minded, anti-religious ideology.
Cal: "You seem to think that the problems above are somehow magically avoided by the peculiar language and descriptions of Aristotlean physics -- that if one can simply categorize things as "per se and per accidens" one can somehow then construct arguments that are circular, that violate their premises, that equivocate, and make ad hoc assertions."
This shows an abysmal lack of reading comprehension on your part, as well as a profound ignorance of the subject matter. If you don't know what Aristotle and Aquinas mean by their terminology, and if you don't know the foundational principles behind the terminology and the arguments, then you are not qualified to judge the argument. Neither you nor Stardusty has the slightest clue what you are talking about, which is why you keep embarrassing yourselves every time you post.
Cal: "Apologists here are so desperate to gain respect for their childish beliefs that they're rather fetishize medieval physics rather than accept reality. Pathetic."
Atheists here are so desperate to not allow even the slightest foothold for something that could support belief in God that they'd rather make utter fools of themselves publically by abandoning the use of reason. Pathetic.
Cal: "Here's where you are apparently too stupid to see one of the problems"
There are two problems in this thread, and both of them are apparently too stupid to realize it. (Hint: Neither is an apologist.)
Cal: And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?"
The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable.
Cal: "The only way that this obvious, glaring deficiency in basic logic can be ignored is if one determines that the words of Aquinas must be preferred over reality and the rules of logic."
We agree that your First Strawman argument is a horrible argument. The problem is you aren't capable of realizing that the First Strawman and the First Way are completely different arguments.
SD: "This is blatant begging the question by the text Aquinas actually wrote. It is just that simple."
If by "simple" you mean that your objections are based in nothing but ignorance, as we have all explained and demonstrated, then I agree it is just that simple. Incidentally, your argument layout with all the C's and U's is not even remotely helpful to clarity, unless you put the key in every post you use it. I'm confident your attempt at reasoning there is flawed, based on everything else you've written here, but it's not worth having to go back and find that first post every time to refresh what everything represents.
SD: "Wrong, I used the word "if"."
Wrong, because I am commenting on your entire analysis - what you (wrongly) think the argument is saying, and your thoughts on what the "if" implicates - also wrong. Simply put, you're wrong. Again.
SD: "It is in some other actualized state, not the actualized state of being hot."
Okay...
SD: "It also leads to Aquinas failing by self contradiction later in the argument as I detailed in..."
You guys are so hung up in the physical details, rather than the concept being discussed. The method of the transference of causal power is utterly irrelevant to the argument - what is important, is that a potential state can only be realized by the causal power of something else that is existent. It was both obvious to Aristotle and Aquinas, and state elsewhere in their writings, that being existent does not grant infinite causal power, so obviously there are limitations as to what effects a cause can bring about.
As to the explanation as to how God can be the First Mover without violating the premise, I touched on the explanation just to feel out your reaction, and with you declaring it to be "meaningless babble" based on your remarkable ignorance and blinding commitment to the automatic rejection of anything contradicting your worldview, it's frankly not worth explaining to someone who doesn't actually want to know. I guess we'll both walk away thinking the other has no idea what he is talking about and is blinded by his ideology, but only I'll be correct in thinking so.
SD: "Of course it is"
No, it isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about, and have no interest in correcting it. Probably due to the fear you would experience if the first chink appeared in your flimsy suit of ideological armor against belief in God.
Me: "And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?" Legion: "The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable."
From the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. (4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
Yup. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who's so dishonest they have to deny reality in order to avoid facing it.
'"And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?" Legion: "The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable."
From the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. (4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
Yup. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who's so dishonest they have to deny reality in order to avoid facing it."'
Take a gander ladies and gents, as new lows in ignorant stupidity are continuously reached, where "cannot proceed to infinity" yanked out of all surrounding context is somehow the same as saying that "reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which as Legion of Logic correctly said, the argument does not say. Anywhere. And which by the way, is something that Aquinas *explicitly* says it *cannot* be proved and is not in the least bit interested in proving. And then Mr. Ignorant Dumbass can write such stuff as "why it is those like Stardusty and myself can seemingly instantly assimilate the gist of comments (even when they are mostly or entirely nonsense), and respond to them directly and cogently?"
Watching these two delusional kooks pretending they can mount the bare semblance of a rational argument and fumbling egregiously at every turn is so hilarious. But please do not let the true charges of ignorant dumbassery prevent Mr. Metzger from continuing. Let me just get the popcorn. Now, what is the next piece of hilarious idiocy he has for us?
grod: "Take a gander ladies and gents, as new lows in ignorant stupidity are continuously reached, where "cannot proceed to infinity" yanked out of all surrounding context ..."
And now the OP is out of context?
This is pretty awesome bizarro world stuff for you guys, even by apologist standards.
grod: "...is somehow the same as saying that "reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which as Legion of Logic correctly said, the argument does not say."
Yes it does. Exactly where I quoted it.
I'll quote it again.
From the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. (4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
If you think it's been taken out of context, just cite from the OP the part that changes the meaning of what I quoted.
grod: "Now, what is the next piece of hilarious idiocy he has for us?"
I dunno. I just write stuff down, and after a little while the idiocy seems to just appear underneath. I know, weird.
"grod: "...is somehow the same as saying that "reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which as Legion of Logic correctly said, the argument does not say."
Yes it does. Exactly where I quoted it."
And Mr. Ignorant Dumbass doubles down -- what else can he do? I will repeat myself (that is another aspect of kooks -- they lack elementary reading skills): among other reasons, the phrase "cannot proceed to infinity" has a subject and it is not "per accidens causal series". What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity, not that reality is a causal series of any sort, or that per accidens causal series "cannot stretch to infinity".
But I will let Mr. Ignorant Dumbass go on and display his awesome powers of instant assimilation and -- make an ass of himself.
Context: That which moves is moved by another, and this by another [and so on]. But this cannot proceed to infinity because there would STILL be no movement. Why? Because that which is moved is moved by another.
The argument DOES NOT say a series cannot stretch to infinity. Go ahead and assume it does because it gets you nowhere.
I know it's pointless because the intellectual heavyweight won't read it, but here it is.
"He seems to think that what Aquinas was concerned to show is that if you lay out a series of causes ordered per se in a straight line, the line will necessarily have a beginning. But that is not what he was concerned to show. As Thomists sometimes point out, it wouldn’t change things in the least if we granted for the sake of argument that a series of causes ordered per se might loop around back on itself in a circle, or even that it might extend forward and backward infinitely. For the point is that as long as the members of such a circular or infinite chain of causes have no independent causal power of their own, there will have to be something outside the series which imparts to them their causal efficacy."
Me: "And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?" Legion: "The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable."
Me, quoting from the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. / (4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
grod: "What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity, not that reality is a causal series of any sort, or that per accidens causal series "cannot stretch to infinity"."
grod (earlier): "So Feser takes the First Way as an instance of the genus "cosmological argument" (which as anyone knows, is not a particular argument but a family of arguments sharing structural features), from which it follows that the listed misunderstandings all apply to the First Way."
The Cambridge Dictionary: "Cosmology: the study of the nature and origin of the universe"
I'll leave grod and the rest of you to choke on your own words.
Not that they apparently mean anything to any of you. But out here in Ree-Al-Uh-Tee, words do still mean something.
Cheers, cracker-jacks. Thanks for putting on quite the show.
"grod: "What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity, not that reality is a causal series of any sort, or that per accidens causal series "cannot stretch to infinity"."
grod (earlier): "So Feser takes the First Way as an instance of the genus "cosmological argument" (which as anyone knows, is not a particular argument but a family of arguments sharing structural features), from which it follows that the listed misunderstandings all apply to the First Way."
The Cambridge Dictionary: "Cosmology: the study of the nature and origin of the universe
I'll leave grod and the rest of you to choke on your own words."
And he triples down -- what else is he gonna do? There is no inconsistency between the two quoted phrases by me. The moron brain-farted and did not even make a noise. Outstanding. The fact that cosmology, as modernly understood, is "the study of the nature and origin of the universe" does not entail that the First Way makes any claims about the entirety of the universe, much less that "reality must be a per accidens causal series" or that Aquinas set out to prove "per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which is *demonstrably* false. Only the brainless empty skull of Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok could make such an inference.
Furthermore, as if the above were not enough, while some cosmological arguments proceed by considering the entirety of the universe, the First Way does *not* as any Thomist commentator -- you know, the actual defenders of the argument, and so the ones to ask about details on the argument, not Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok or the psycho kook -- will inform any reader wishing to know. In fact, this is one of the misunderstandings listed by Feser in the post bmiller linked to, which, if Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok had read would have saved him yet another epic fail. Granted, he cannot read, but still...
Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok is so *desperate* to avoid recognizing what is obvious to anyone, that he does not have the least idea of what he is talking about, that he is going kookier with the passing time, mumbling an ever more incoherent babble, a kind of infantile regression. Fascinating. It must be all those awesome powers of assimilation.
"Cheers, cracker-jacks. Thanks for putting on quite the show."
Do not be coy, you and the delusional psycho kook are the stars of the freak show here.
Welp, that was my last effort. It's apparent that Cal and SD are incapable of understanding the argument, so they are going to keep attacking the First Strawman. It's funny that so many of their errors could have been avoided simply by reading the links we posted and trying to understand the argument and underlying principles and terminology, but the combination of anti-religious delusion and blinding atheistic ideology makes it impossible for them to objectively discuss anything related to God or Christianity.
I think the critics of the First Way are basically saying that there really is no such thing as an essentially ordered series? SD and Cal, is that right?
Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms.
" your argument layout with all the C's and U's is not even remotely helpful to clarity, unless you put the key in every post you use it." The key is in the OP. You say you read the OP, okay, but you sometimes do not recall its details. See the OP for the key.
SD: "It also leads to Aquinas failing by self contradiction later in the argument as I detailed in..."
" You guys are so hung up in the physical details, rather than the concept being discussed. The method of the transference of causal power is utterly irrelevant to the argument" Reality is relevant. How real causality really works is relevant. Aquinas did not understand causality because nobody understood causality at that time. No serious discussion of causality references Aristotle or Aquinas except as quaint historical mythology or pre-scientific misconceptions.
" - what is important, is that a potential state can only be realized by the causal power of something else that is existent. It was both obvious to Aristotle and Aquinas, and state elsewhere in their writings, that being existent does not grant infinite causal power, so obviously there are limitations as to what effects a cause can bring about." Right, only a hot thing makes a non-hot thing hot. Only a moving thing makes a non-moving thing move, as is clearly stated in 2d of the OP and its related examples.
" As to the explanation as to how God can be the First Mover without violating the premise, I touched on the explanation just to feel out your reaction, and with you declaring it to be "meaningless babble" based on your remarkable ignorance" Acutally I can show you how incoherent your assertions are in that respect. But that is another discussion.
The First Way is a logically invalid argument by self contradiction, begging the question, ad hoc, false dichotomy, and it is unsound by false premise. .
SD: "Then god lacks free will."
" Uh huh." At last we agree :-) Omniscience negates free will. Lack of decision making means god is a pre-determined robot. But those are other discussions.
Sorry legion, you really have not addressed the specific logical fallacies I have pointed out about the First Way, not at all.
We have an OP as reference. That is my primary reference. That is where you will find the notation and the key and the full text English language translation, albeit broken down in the author's own way and invalidly notated, but at least it is a common reference document.
" Welp, that was my last effort. " Not much of one. You have not followed the specific arguments in a rational, step by step analysis.
"It's apparent that Cal and SD are incapable of understanding the argument," I understand that the argument is invalid and unsound because it is self contradictory, begs the question, and issues a false ad hoc assertion.
You have provided no systematic counter arguments.
I think the critics of the First Way are basically saying that there really is no such thing as an essentially ordered series? SD and Cal, is that right?"
The language of Aristotle and Aquinas is quaint pre-scientific attempts to understand causality.
No modern discussion of causality even uses those ancient terms. I only use them in the interest of speaking in the medieval vernacular of the OP.
" Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms."
Nobody here can provide a definition of "act" in any clear or concise way. A few links have been provided but they always turn out to be vague and lengthy fluff.
" Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms."
I have asked for a clear definition of "act" from the folks here but nobody seems able to provide one.
" Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms."
You can see that the First Way becomes babble when you use "act=existence" here: March 12, 2017 2:42 PM
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Legion: "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."
Legion: "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."
I don't think you understand the term "tongue-in-cheek."
You appear to want to make fun of telekinesis, but your writing above indicates that you still take it seriously -- that you actually think that abstract thought causing real, motionless things to move (telekinesis) is a viable conclusion. But when it's revealed that telekinesis, the term, makes you appear like kind of a quack, you backtrack and try to say it was meant "tongue-in-cheek," the whole while seemingly oblivious to the fact that you are still defending telekinesis.
Pretend pretend pretend.
" 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.
Legion of Logic said...
" 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."
Not the case
" What, you and Cal want to hog absurd answers as your exclusive domain?"
SP Ok, so it is an absurd suggestion, yet that is god, a telekinetic being, absurd indeed.
February 23, 2017 7:35 AM
Actually, your delivery was kind of dead pan and on a blog where some folks seriously put forward all sorts of fanciful ideas telekinesis seemed like a fairly ordinary theistic assertion, and would be a fair description of the magic powers attributed to god very commonly.
"I wonder, does New Atheism attract fools, or does it create them?"
People who think rationally on the subject reject religion and god. Those who don't, don't. For example, I have not noticed any responses to February 23, 2017 7:35 AM here, and the self proclaimed smacker on the other thread literally does not even know the definition of "materialist", yet he launches into long, tedious, confused lectures and is completely incapable of advancing his "theory" beyond vague shallow incoherent generalizations.
February 26, 2017 10:13 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" Comment 600!"
When I was a little kid it was big fun when my dad would point out that the odometer was about to roll over. Usually it was the small ones like going from 49999.9 to 50000.0 I always wanted to see 99999.9 go to 00000.0, I mean, fun just doesn't get any bigger than that!!!
Well, Cal provided a couple good recaps
February 21, 2017 4:21 PM
February 24, 2017 6:45 AM
It's been over 600 comments now and we atheists keep trying to refocus and concentrate on the actual words and the actual arguments and follow them carefully step by step in an organized and rational process but it is like whack-a-mole speak with the theists here.
In February 23, 2017 7:35 AM I realized you tend to slip into a view of materialism similarly misunderstood by the evasive, long winded self described smacker on the other thread, although paraphrasing his use of hyphens seems potentially useful.
materialism = material-only-ism
A material is a substance, stuff, or medium. It includes matter, energy, spacetime, and any new sort of stuff that might be discovered below the fundamental particle level or beyond the big bang or a dark material in space. If there is a god then material includes whatever god is made of.
Aquinas said only a thing in actuality can cause a potential thing to move to actuality. Since you recognize that all change is motion, and the First Way is an argument for god from motion, it should be easy to see that the first way is a physics argument.
It is a bad physics argument because it was written before Galileo and Newton, at a time when many physics arguments were bad arguments based on wrong principles.
The First Way is also a bad physics argument because it is badly worded. It starts out with a series of observations about motion that are very reasonable. But Aquinas falls apart by contradicting himself later in the argument, begging the question, introducing a blatantly false premise at the end, and he even fails to explicitly state the conclusion that is the whole point of the argument in the first place, that god therefore exists.
Maybe if you go back to February 23, 2017 7:35 AM you will see how your inaccurate definition of materialism is one key factor to coming to terms with how incredibly bad of an argument the First Way is.
February 26, 2017 10:26 AM
"Pretend pretend pretend."
I keep having to lower my expectations of New Atheists thanks to this blog, which is remarkable given how low they were to begin with.
But if it helps you sleep at night thinking telekinesis was a literal argument, far be it for me to prevent us both from amusement at the other's expense.
SD,
Which part of the Feb. 23 comment were you referring to?
Legion of Logic said...
" Which part of the Feb. 23 comment were you referring to?"
Kind of the whole thing of both of them :-)
I could possibly copy and paste it all here but that is why I copy the date and time, to make it fairly simple to go to a particular post. I realize wading back several days can be kind of onerous.
But especially the first of the first and the last of the second post.
Change is motion. If somebody can cite an example of any sort of change that does not require a physical motion, a movement of material from one location to another location, I would honestly appreciate an example, because I cannot think of one, and on the 23rd neither could you.
So, very apparently, the First Way is a physics argument. It is an argument from motion for god. Physical motion, a change in position of a material from one location to another location. That is physics, or is described by physics.
The First Way is also a logical argument. To be useful it needs to remain valid in the 21st century. It's no good saying it was a good argument in the 13th century. That might have some historical value, but no modern argumentation value.
Here are some points in the first way stated by Aquinas:
Something moves.
Nothing moves itself.
Anything that is moved is moved by something else.
Only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move.
This sequence of cause and effect cannot go back to infinity.
So, he is making a number of reasonable sounding statements up to this point in the argument. However, in fact, the part about not going back to infinity is what the problem is all about, so it is actually an ad hoc statement that an actual infinity is physically impossible just because it is logically irrational. The remaining possibility is that we humans have inadequate powers of rationality to fathom an infinite regression of actual motion.
Further still, he begs the question at this point by introducing a conclusion as the justification for a premise by stating "because then there would be no first mover"
Things get even worse after this because he then posits a first mover that violates his set of premises he just gave us! Only a moving thing can cause motion, so god is moving. But that means god moved itself (a violation), or god has always been moving (a violation).
To really mess things up Aquinas closes with an ad hoc premise that is blatantly false.
Finally he does not explicitly state the final conclusion, therefore god exists, only leaving that conclusion as implicit to his ad hoc false premise introduced at the end.
So, as for the posts on the 23rd, they were pretty much just responses to your points, but I did want to clear up a few things:
Materialist means material-ist, not just matter-ist. Material includes matter, energy, spacetime, and any stuff the might be discovered in the future such as stuff particles are made of, stuff the universe arose from, and dark stuff presently in our observable universe.
The First Way is a physics argument and a logical argument, so it must be held to account accordingly, and it fails miserably on that basis.
February 26, 2017 8:44 PM
@Legion of Logic,
I saw what you did there. Had to get #600 didn't you.
But in doing so, you brought back the dull minded strawman argument.
Legion: "But if it helps you sleep at night thinking telekinesis was a literal argument, far be it for me to prevent us both from amusement at the other's expense."
I'm not sure what you're even backtracking from. Telekinesis is no less evidenced than a motionless thing causing another motionless to move. If you want to posit something causing something else to move by, well, thinking it, but not transferring any energy or being in motion itself, then I think it's pretty fair to say that you're talking about telekinesis.
Here's what this looks like:
Apologist: The first mover moves something without moving at all.
Skeptic: So, you believe in telekinesis?
Apologist: No, that's quackery.
Skeptic: What if I told you it really was telekinesis?
Apologist: I knew it!
Rinse / repeat
Stevek: "Rinse / repeat"
Rinse repeat indeed.
The best explanation is that the apologist suffers from these two deficiencies:
1. The apologist cannot conceive of a world not created by a higher being. The mind of the apologist literally can't step back to this place. This dooms all discussions about reality.
2. The only explanation apologists can conceive of for those who don't god-bother is that those who don't god-bother are ignorant of something that apologists are certain must exist (some good explanation), even though they themselves don't know that explanation and don't know how to find it.
The above explains everything on this thread, and much of the internet.
You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it.
And you can tell when someone can't or won't understand the argument when he can't or won't explain the argument back in a way you can recognize it.
Stuff with straw/beat/repeat
Words to live by
Blogger bmiller said...
" You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it.
And you can tell when someone can't or won't understand the argument when he can't or won't explain the argument back in a way you can recognize it."
Indeed, you cannot or will not understand the argument in February 26, 2017 9:47 PM above since you have proven yourself incapable of explaining it back in a comprehensive, coherent, and forthright manner, rather, only an unrecognizable smattering of disjointed distortions, diversions, confusions, and falsehoods.
February 27, 2017 7:54 PM
Stuff with straw/beat/repeat
bmiller: "You can tell when someone understands the argument when he can explain it back to you in a way that you recognize it."
I can also tell when someone has read Harry Potter when they can explain the story of Harry Potter back to me in a way that I recognize. This doesn't make Harry Potter a wizard, however.
bmiller: "And you can tell when someone can't or won't understand the argument when he can't or won't explain the argument back in a way you can recognize it. "
In this way Harry Potter has an advantage, in that we can compare the text written by JK Rowling concerning Harry Potter, and we can use the text to confirm whether or not someone has read about Harry Potter. This would never make Harry Potter a real wizard, however.
It seems that with the silly "argument" here no one wants to refer to the original, and no one can reference any other magical texts that clear up the problems as described.
And that is why Harry Potter is so much better what has been offered here by the apologists.
When you can't answer your opponents, just spin some straw
bmiller: "When you can't answer your opponents, just spin some straw"
Apologists: Everyone should recognize that there is a dragon in my garage.
Skeptics: This garage?
Apologist: Yes, this one.
Skeptic (checks out 2 car garage): There doesn't seem to be anything like a dragon in here. Do you mean a real, breathing, dragon, the way the term is meant?
Apologist: Yes, in every way that a a dragon can exist, that is what is in my garage.
Skeptic: Still, no dragon. Do you mean an invisible dragon, or a toy, miniature dragon, or something very different from what most people mean when they use the term "dragon"?
Apologist: No, a real dragon. I already showed you my dragon earlier, so I don't know why you are objecting now.
Skeptic: What? You never showed me your dragon. There's no sign of a dragon ever having been here. And there's clearly no dragon in your garage now.
Apologist: Why must you strawman my dragon?
Apparently atheists believe that straw can be gold if you spin enough
First Way Analysis 1
First Way Analysis 2
"This doesn't make Harry Potter a wizard, however"
The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. A skeptic that gets the story wrong will not come to that conclusion and thus the skeptic is wrong according to the facts.
In similar fashion, a skeptic that gets the first way argument wrong by inventing premises that do not exist in the argument - they too are wrong according to the facts.
Rinse/Repeat
SteveK: "The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. A skeptic that gets the story wrong will not come to that conclusion and thus the skeptic is wrong according to the facts."
I can think of few better examples of the inability of the apologist to think clearly, critically, and discern reality from woo than the comment above, as well as bmiller's continued inability to even grasp the criticism offered here.
Bravo.
Rinse/Repeat
Cal: For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false.
Me: Cal cannot even get the argument right. That's not a premise of the argument
Rinse/Repeat
Me: "Cal: For instance, recently it's been pointed out that the premise that a motionless thing (merely existent) can move another motionless thing is false.
SteveK: "Cal cannot even get the argument right. That's not a premise of the argument"
Nope. It is. Just ask a fellow apologist from this thread.
Legion (earlier in this thread): "The entire point of the concept of the first mover is that it does not itself undergo change. Thus it does not violate the premise."
You are so balled up you don't even know what you think you're arguing against. As your president would say, "Sad."
So what are you arguing for? Oh, that's right:
Stevek! "The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. A skeptic that gets the story wrong will not come to that conclusion and thus the skeptic is wrong according to the facts."
Sad.
Cal Metzger said...
" You are so balled up you don't even know what you think you're arguing against. "
Well, Cal, you and I have done our best to recap, refocus, and bring the discussion back to a comprehensive treatment of the OP.
Thus far no theist, in over 600 posts, has been willing to engage in that process. All theistic engagement is a pot shot, bits and pieces, whack-a-mole process of arguing some small point here or there, but always with a steadfast refusal to apply whatever is said consistently through the whole OP and see if the OP stands or fails as a complete argument.
I laid out the whole argument again, start to finish, in one post just recently:
February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
You did similar efforts:
February 21, 2017 4:21 PM
February 24, 2017 6:45 AM
The only responses have been some throwaway quips about rinsing and wizards.
The simple fact is that the First Way is at the very least self defeating. Any particular theistic interpretation of "act" leads either to blatant self contradiction or pointless gibberish.
I can only guess that perhaps this whack-a-mole thinking, only looking at a fraction of the argument at any particular time, is possibly some sort of theistic world view subliminal defense mechanism. Another possibility is segmented irrationality in the theistic sectors of their brains. Or perhaps it is as simple as willful and knowing dishonesty on the part of the theists here.
" Stevek! "The facts of the story DO make Harry a wizard. "
The facts of the story make Harry a figment of the imagination with no actual realization outside the thinking of the reader or author, and is thus a good analogy for god.
March 01, 2017 5:18 PM
"Nope. It is."
Nothing is said about motionlessness in any of the premises. The quote from Legion doesn't help you.
"The only responses have been some throwaway quips about rinsing and wizards."
To quote Cal...pretend pretend pretend
SteveK said...
" Nothing is said about motionlessness in any of the premises. "
Indeed. I completely agree that nowhere in any premise in the First Way is it asserted that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move.
Just the opposite. A premise is that only a thing in actuality can cause a thing in potentiality to move to actuality. Thus, only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move.
So, the first mover was moving.
That leaves two possibilities for the asserted first mover:
1. The first mover was always moving.
2. The first mover moved itself.
Both 1. and 2. are violations of other premises. Hence, the first way defeats itself as it is self contradictory.
You can see
February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
For a more complete recap of the premises and defects of the First Way.
March 02, 2017 8:23 AM
"I completely agree that nowhere in any premise in the First Way is it asserted that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move."
Then you completely agree that Cal doesn't know the argument. Nice work, Dusty!
"A premise is that only a thing in actuality can cause a thing in potentiality to move to actuality."
Correct
"Thus, only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move."
Fail! That's not a premise of the argument. That's your imagination at work.
SteveK said...
SP "I completely agree that nowhere in any premise in the First Way is it asserted that a motionless thing can cause a motionless thing to move."
"Then you completely agree that Cal doesn't know the argument. Nice work, Dusty!"
Ok, Cal may have been referring to the theists who claim the first mover was motionless, but that would be a violation as well.
SP "A premise is that only a thing in actuality can cause a thing in potentiality to move to actuality."
" Correct"
SP "Thus, only a moving thing can cause a stationary thing to move."
" Fail! That's not a premise of the argument. That's your imagination at work."
That is your unjustified assertion at work.
The first way is an argument from motion. Again and again we here the word "move" from Aquinas. The example provided by Aquinas to further explain the meaning of the premise is of a moving thing (a flame) causing an apparently non-moving thing (wood) to move.
Aquinas even provides a second example of a hand (clearly moving) that moves the staff. A stationary hand does not move a staff. Only a moving hand moves a staff.
Change requires motion. Motion is a change. To change a physical motion is required.
Simply blurting out the word "fail" is yet another example of the bits and pieces, whack-a-mole, scatterbrain "argumentation" of the theists here.
Not a single theist here has taken the time, in over 600 posts, to carefully and consistently apply rational argumentation to the whole argument from start to finish.
Simply blurting out "fail" is simply idiotic.
March 02, 2017 10:12 AM
you said ONLY a moving thing can cause...
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
This is NOT part of the actual premise. The examples given are examples of actual things causing the actualization of a potential - which is what the actual premise says. None of the premises say anything about what condition the actual thing must be in - only that is must actually exist.
Reading comprehension, remember?
Rinse/Repeat
SteveK said...
" only that is must actually exist."
How stupid.
*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*
Aquinas just told you "actually hot" causes "potentially hot" to be "actually hot". Are you really this irrational or do you get some weird enjoyment out of pretending to be this irrational?
You say:
"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to existence, except by something in
a state of existence ", which is meaningless gibberish.
Your assertion of "actuality" = "existence" is stupid because that is not how Aquinas leads up to the statement, that is not how Aquinas explains the statement with 2 explicit examples, and if your idiotic definition is inserted throughout the whole argument then the argument becomes meaningless gibberish.
But go ahead, go throughout the First Way, exchange the words "act" or "actuality" with the word "existent" and see what you get...an argument of gibberish.
Do you have that capacity? Do you have even the most rudimentary logical capability to apply your definition consistently throughout the whole argument or are you the scatterbrain you appear to be, only capable of dealing one phrase at a time?
March 02, 2017 2:44 PM
@SteveK
Have you ever considered that this is the type of people you are dealing with? Especially the "Common Characteristics"?
SteveK: "This is NOT part of the actual premise. The examples given are examples of actual things causing the actualization of a potential - which is what the actual premise says. None of the premises say anything about what condition the actual thing must be in - only that is must actually exist."
Poor Stevek.
Too stupid to realize that a premise that asserts that mere existence (without motion) is enough to cause another motionless to move is false.
Too stupid to recognize that the interpretation of the argument he tries to defend equivocates by confusing the existence of a motionless object and the existence of the same object while it is in motion.
Too stupid to know how to apply critical thinking in order to reveal the flaws in premises and inconsistencies in arguments.
And too shabby and proud and vain to earn much sympathy for his failings as described above.
Sad.
Rinse / Repeat
lol
SteveK said...
" Rinse / Repeat lol"
Is there any theist on this site capable of sound analysis of a complete argument?
To do so one examines all the premises, applies definitions of words consistently throughout the argument, examines all the conclusions, and analyzes the argument for potential logical fallacies, structural defects, and unsound conclusions.
Anybody out there?
Here are a few hints as to what sound analysis does not consist of.
1. Single word or single phrase responses such as "crank", "rinse", or "lol", absent any subsequent substantial argumentation.
2. Conveniently selective application of a redefinition of a word in only 1 place such as:
"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in
a state of existence (actuality)."
3. Dogged head in the sand refusal to acknowledge that a conclusion necessarily violates the premises already stated in the argument itself, such as
First mover was always moving (a violation)
First mover moved itself (a violation)
First mover does not move (a violation)
4. "Motion" is somehow not physics.
5. A patently false premise such as "this everybody understands to be god".
Anybody? Can any theist here actually engage in a sound argumentation process?
March 03, 2017 9:00 AM
Cranks gonna crank.
Rinse/Repeat
"To do so one examines all the premises, applies definitions of words consistently throughout the argument, examines all the conclusions, and analyzes the argument for potential logical fallacies, structural defects, and unsound conclusions"
Ohhhh, I see! After 600+ comments you now want something like THIS
Rinse/Repeat (literally full circle)
Stardusty: "Can any theist here actually engage in a sound argumentation process?"
I think you have your answer above, don't you?
I suggest that we turn this into an opportunity to compare notes on the behavior and mental processes of your run-of-the-mill apologists.
Principally, I have often wondered about whether or not defending the indefensible leads to such shoddy behavior as we have seen here (misrepresentation, misplaced sneering and unearned condescension, Dunning-Kruger, hypocrisy, sanctimony, an inability to focus on a topic, strawmanning, and the list goes on), or if these are the mental habits that have lead to the beliefs these apologists hold. I go back and forth on this one, and I'm curious what your thoughts are. In other words, do the beliefs lead to adopting poor rational habits, or does poor rational thinking lead to apologetics?
I think that what's often not understood by your run-of-the-mill apologists is how morally repugnant I find their approach to critical thinking and belief testing, etc. There is, I think, a moral component to the failings of the apologist intellectual approach (cowardice? narcissism? projection?). And that most of us are too polite to remark on this as a possible explanation for adopting obviously false beliefs. More often than not it seems to me that humility, as much as ignorance or flat out stupidity, is what stands in the way of rational thinking.
You said earlier that I should beware “the self effacing false equivalency.” I am curious to hear if you could elaborate on that. To be honest, there are times when I catch myself starting to reflexively think and act in ways similar to what we’ve seen from the apologists here, and so I don’t doubt that were it not for some good luck and happy circumstances in my life I might find myself thinking and acting more like they have here. (I know; shudder.)
SteveK said...
"To do so one examines all the premises, applies definitions of words consistently throughout the argument, examines all the conclusions, and analyzes the argument for potential logical fallacies, structural defects, and unsound conclusions"
" Ohhhh, I see! After 600+ comments you now want something like THIS"
Indeed, at least the OP makes some poor attempt to follow a thorough, rational discourse on the subject.
Haines fails in a number of respects. I have gone through all of them in several comprehensive and detailed explanations as to exactly where and how Aquinas fails and Haines fails.
No theist has been able to do likewise, that is to consistently and thoroughly demonstrate that the clear failures of Aquinas and Haines somehow are not failures.
Haines does manage to state that "act" refers to an actually existing state, which you and others misunderstood to simply mean existent, as in merely existentially realized.
Haines does a particularly poor job with what he calls premise (2), since he glosses over a whole set of premises and arguments and examples that he groups under that number.
Haines fails to detect the obvious question begging in what he calls premise (4).
Haines fails to recognize that (5)a. is actually an additional premise, and one that is blatantly false.
Haines fails to recognize that his "unchanging changer" interpretation is a violation of (2)d. and is thus self contradictory.
Haines fails to recognize that the First Way is an argument for god, not merely an argument for a first mover, and thus, the final conclusion, "therefore god exists" is left only as implicit to premise (5)a., and owing to the many defects of the argument, not the least of which is the blatantly false final premise, the implicit conclusion "therefore god exists" is unsound.
Haines fails in his ad hoc assertions that "move" means "change", which is belied by the examples, both of physically moving objects (flame and staff). He further fails to acknowledge that all observed change requires motion, a physical movement from one location to another location of some existent thing, and the distinction between "move" and "change" in the premises is therefore moot.
No theist here has displayed even the slightest capacity to engage this subject at once thoroughly, consistently, and rationally.
March 03, 2017 12:40 PM
Cal Metzger said...
" In other words, do the beliefs lead to adopting poor rational habits, or does poor rational thinking lead to apologetics?"
That is an interesting subject. But I have been an atheist so long that I find it very difficult to relate to the irrationality that grips the theistic segment of most human brains. I rejected the idea of god at 12, so theism is for me literally childish. In my personal experience only a child could possibly believe in such utter nonsense.
Yet, so many self identifying theists are otherwise highly functional. So the psychology of it all is indeed fascinating.
You might find better insights from some of the folks out there, say, Matt Dillahunty who rejected his theistic upbringing as an adult. Perhaps such a person can recall the internally conflicted thought processes he experienced as an adult theist.
But as to your specific question, I would hypothesize an intermingled positive feedback sequence over time. A self reinforcing stepwise temporal process of lived experiences and thinking with apologetics and poor rational skills that are triggered by the subject of god feeding into each other.
" I find their approach to critical thinking and belief testing, etc. There is, I think, a moral component to the failings of the apologist intellectual approach (cowardice? narcissism? projection?)."
I would add dishonesty, perhaps at first a sort of honest dishonesty, that is, telling oneself falsehoods without realizing it, but then, conscious dishonesty as well for the more hard core and trollish sort.
" You said earlier that I should beware “the self effacing false equivalency.” I am curious to hear if you could elaborate on that. To be honest, there are times when I catch myself starting to reflexively think and act in ways similar to what we’ve seen from the apologists here, and so I don’t doubt that were it not for some good luck and happy circumstances in my life I might find myself thinking and acting more like they have here."
Ok, but that is a what if. You are saying you could imagine yourself as X, but that does not make you X. That is part of the false equivalency. By luck, by dedication to reasoning, by whatever means you have intentionally avoided becoming X, so don't make yourself equivalent to those who revel in X.
For example, we may all experiences moments of anger and temptations toward violence, but there is a significant distinction to be made between the ordinary person who is able to cope with those inclinations toward violence and remain physically peaceful, versus the person who lives a life of violence.
March 03, 2017 1:00 PM
Gainsaying notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that anyone here has adequately shown where the argument fails. I leave you with this simple graphic
Blogger SteveK said...
" Gainsaying notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that anyone here has adequately shown where the argument fails."
Just saying vaguely "I'm not convinced" is particularly poor argumentation, especially given the very specific failure mechanisms cited in March 03, 2017 1:21 PM.
" I leave you with this simple graphic"
The graphic makes the mistake of using "god" in place of "first mover" or "super stuff with irrational properties yet existent".
Calling it "god" reveals the confirmation bias and limited thinking of the artist.
But as long as we are positing superstuff that can have irrational properties the author should have the infinity path going to infinitystuff.
And why aren't there any lines depicting the origin of god? What about god's god? And how about god's god god? Or maybe superstuff created god that created us. Mmmm, come to think of it, the possibilities are unbounded, and to pick any particular solution is arbitrary, unjustified, ad hoc, and very limited thinking.
One good thing about the graphic is that it brings up the potential for better constructed arguments from first cause, arguments that do not suffer from the many glaring defects of a 13th century author.
But that is not the subject of the OP, which is the First Way, a blatantly fallacious, badly worded, and unsound argument.
March 03, 2017 2:45 PM
"The graphic makes the mistake of using "god" in place of "first mover" or "super stuff with irrational properties yet existent".
Arguing over labels now are we? Okay, call it super stuff. I'll leave it to you to argue for the validity of your other claims. I'll be here...waiting
stevek: "Arguing over labels now are we? Okay, call it super stuff. I'll leave it to you to argue for the validity of your other claims. I'll be here...waiting"
Don't mistake engagement with your comments as interest in your assessment over validity, etc.; speaking for myself (but I would not be surprised if Stardusty agrees), I am only curious to see how it is that you continue to rationalize the embarrassingly obvious mistakes that you make.
That's the service your comments offer.
>> Haines does a particularly poor job with what he calls premise (2), since he glosses over a whole set of premises and arguments and examples that he groups under that number.
List these premises and arguments and how they impact the argument.
>> Haines fails to detect the obvious question begging in what he calls premise (4).
Show that it's actual question begging. Show how an infinite sequence of things that do not move can move.
>> Haines fails to recognize that (5)a. is actually an additional premise, and one that is blatantly false.
5a is not part of the argument proper. I'll glady remove it for now. A separate argument can be made to connect 5 to 5a.
>> Haines fails to recognize that his "unchanging changer" interpretation is a violation of (2)d. and is thus self contradictory.
There is nothing in 2d that requires ALL movers to be changing, thus 5 does not contradict 2d.
>> Haines fails to recognize that the First Way is an argument for god, not merely an argument for a first mover, and thus, the final conclusion, "therefore god exists" is left only as implicit to premise (5)a., and owing to the many defects of the argument, not the least of which is the blatantly false final premise, the implicit conclusion "therefore god exists" is unsound.
You can end the argument at 5 if you want.
>> Haines fails in his ad hoc assertions that "move" means "change", which is belied by the examples, both of physically moving objects (flame and staff). He further fails to acknowledge that all observed change requires motion, a physical movement from one location to another location of some existent thing, and the distinction between "move" and "change" in the premises is therefore moot.
Irrelevant until you can explain how it is relevant
SteveK said...
SP "The graphic makes the mistake of using "god" in place of "first mover" or "super stuff with irrational properties yet existent".
" Arguing over labels now are we?"
No trivial matter as mere labels, rather what each asserted solution is and is not.
Aquinas thought this distinction important enough to warrant a (false) premise. He apparantly recognized that a first mover, even if demonstrated, would not necessarily be considered a god, so he made the false assertion that we all consider such a thing to be god.
" Okay, call it super stuff."
Ok, superstuff it is then.
The problem of the origin of existence remains unsolved. Clearly, we are faced with some choices
1. Ordinary stuff has some properties that allow it to either pop into existence out of absolutely nothing or to exist forever, and our brains are as yet incapable of understanding those properties.
2. Some as yet undiscovered stuff that can give rise to ordinary stuff has such properties.
March 03, 2017 4:55 PM
SteveK said...
>> Haines does a particularly poor job with what he calls premise (2), since he glosses over a whole set of premises and arguments and examples that he groups under that number.
" List these premises and arguments and how they impact the argument."
They are right there on the page you linked to me:
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10]
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in act.
i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in act, and in this way the wood is moved and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense.
i. That, in effect, which is actually burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold.
f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself.
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
Importance discussed below.
>> Haines fails to detect the obvious question begging in what he calls premise (4).
" Show that it's actual question begging. Show how an infinite sequence of things that do not move can move."
The conclusion of the argument is that there is a first mover called U. In this premise he states the reason for the impossibility of infinite regress is the absence of a first mover.
Haines lists this premise as ~I. His justification is that I requires ~U, and there must be U, therefore ~I. But it is U that he is attempting to necessarily conclude! This is blatant question begging.
Haines fails because Aquinas fails to independently justify ~I, and fails to acknowledge that if I is the case then ~U simply is the case.
March 03, 2017 6:28 PM
SteveK said...
>> Haines fails to recognize that (5)a. is actually an additional premise, and one that is blatantly false.
" 5a is not part of the argument proper. "
Baloney. This is an argument for god. Aquinas is not arguing for a first mover. Aquinas is providing 5 separate arguments for god.
"I'll glady remove it for now."
Then you destroy the argument because this is an argument for god, and you have now removed any link to god from the argument.
" A separate argument can be made to connect 5 to 5a."
Not a sound one, and not one that appears in the First Way.
>> Haines fails to recognize that his "unchanging changer" interpretation is a violation of (2)d. and is thus self contradictory.
" There is nothing in 2d that requires ALL movers to be changing, thus 5 does not contradict 2d."
Of course there is, it is in the definition of actuality which is not mere existence, rather, existence of the property in question.
"not possible...unless".
This is a statement of absolute exclusion. This is a statement of "only".
"Actually hot...not possible unless...caused by actually hot"
Aquinas explains it to you clearly by definition and by examples, the second example being that of a staff which is clearly moved only by a moving hand.
>> Haines fails to recognize that the First Way is an argument for god, not merely an argument for a first mover, and thus, the final conclusion, "therefore god exists" is left only as implicit to premise (5)a., and owing to the many defects of the argument, not the least of which is the blatantly false final premise, the implicit conclusion "therefore god exists" is unsound.
" You can end the argument at 5 if you want."
I can or you can but Aquinas did not. The reason is clear. The Five Ways are arguments for god. Aquinas set out to demonstrate god as a necessary being and a necessary conclusion.
God. Not superstuff, god. Aquinas is arguing for god. But he does such a bad job of it that apologists now try to say he was not arguing for god.
>> Haines fails in his ad hoc assertions that "move" means "change", which is belied by the examples, both of physically moving objects (flame and staff). He further fails to acknowledge that all observed change requires motion, a physical movement from one location to another location of some existent thing, and the distinction between "move" and "change" in the premises is therefore moot.
" Irrelevant until you can explain how it is relevant"
Haines is the one who brings it up. It becomes relevant when apologists try to introduce some fuzzy notion of change that is somehow distinct from motion and will somehow allow the glaring defects in the First Way that motion clearly does not allow.
I agree that the First Way fails in either case.
March 03, 2017 6:28 PM
For those following along and are interested whether David Haines‘ interpretation of the First Way is correct or whether some internet crank’s interpretations is correct should refer to the evidence provided in the article’s footnotes as opposed to merely cranky opinions.
There is further scholarly evidence supporting Mr. Haines position of the terms used and analysis at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Of course scholarly evidence will not convince cranks, but it will help honest inquirers interested in expert opinion.
bmiller: "For those following along and are interested whether David Haines‘ interpretation of the First Way is correct or whether some internet crank’s interpretations is correct should refer to the evidence provided in the article’s footnotes as opposed to merely cranky opinions."
Of course, the footnotes DO NOT answer the criticisms that Stardusty has so ably explicated. But I understand that your only option is to pretend that they do.
If the footnotes acutally did answer the criticisms explicated by Stardusty above, you would be able to summarize them adequately, or, if that was beyond you, you could hope to locate them and cite them so as to show how they avoid the criticism put forth above. You won't do this because you cannot. So your only option is to pretend that you can.
bmiller: "There is further scholarly evidence supporting Mr. Haines position of the terms used and analysis at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy."
How sad, really. The answers, which if they existed, would be so easy to type in these comboxes, supposedly exists in something as vague and unspecific and unhelpful as a link that has countless articles on a myriad of topics.
But even better is the (accidental?) fact that when I click on the link that supposedly supports your position, I get the sad little truth from my browser, revealing that your supposed "evidence" (?) is indeed, "NOT FOUND."
And that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?
You have no answers to the criticisms offered here. Only empty promises that the answers exist, even if all evidence demonstrates that no one (least of all you) has actually found them.
Sad.
Atheists are so sad they may start crying.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
HT Cal.
Apologists: "The Washington Monument regularly flies to the moon."
Skeptics: "What? No it doesn't. What do you even mean?"
Apologists: "As evidence that the Washington monument regularly flies to the moon, I refer you, again, to the Washington Monument."
Crankity crank.
Apologist: "I believe this because all these other people I think are smart think it's true."
Skeptic: "What are the reasons that those 'smart' people think it's true."
Apologist: "That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who are smarter than you are think it's true. Therefore."
Skeptic: "How would you know if these people you think have the answers are wrong?"
Apologist: "They can't be. They're smart."
Skeptic: "How do you know they're smart?"
Apologist: "Because they understand the reasons for what I believe to be true."
I think that explains most of what we read above.
bmiller said...
" From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ."
(link to Aristotelian physics page)
March 04, 2017 11:46 AM
Ok, as long as we are playing oldies...
Here is a great link to learn all about astronomy
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/ptolemy.html
Here is a terrific link to learn about chemistry
https://www.alchemylab.com/alchemical_theory.htm
And here you can learn all about physics, after which you will understand how wonderful the First Way is!!!
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
From Wikipedia: Crank (person)
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
I invite those following along to compare and contrast David Haines‘ interpretation and analysis of the First Way, (including footnotes and explanation of terms used) with scholarly articles.
Then do the same with the internet cranks and see how many of the 4 defining instances of a Crank we have witnessed in the comment section. (Hint1: Good listeners wouldn't repost a link to the same article in response to a comment that had the same link. Hint2: If the crank had actually read that link they would know their interpretation was, hence demonstrating #3)
Apologist: "I believe this because all these other people I think are smart think it's true."
Skeptic: "What are the reasons that those 'smart' people think it's true."
Apologist: "That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who are smarter than you are think it's true. Therefore."
Skeptic: "How would you know if these people you think have the answers are wrong?"
Apologist: "They can't be. They're smart."
Skeptic: "How do you know they're smart?"
Apologist: "Because they understand the reasons for what I believe to be true."
I think that explains most of what we read above.
If there are any apologists left who think they can offer serious rebuttals to the criticisms offered throughout this thread, some of which were recently summarized by Stardusty in his comment on March 03, 2017 1:21 PM, then now would be the time to make them.
Otherwise I think this thread speaks for itself, and that the First Way deserves the "defense" offered by the likes of SteveK and bmiller here.
Cranks proudly wear #1 like a badge of honor.
Also from Wikipedia:
"In addition, many cranks:
1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
>> This is blatant question begging.
It's not question begging. It's common sense logic. If something cannot move itself (an agreed upon premise), having an infinite set of those same kind of things results in the same conclusion - a thing that cannot move itself. Therefore an infinite regress cannot produce the observed motion.
>> This is a statement of absolute exclusion. This is a statement of "only".
You're talking about 2d. Here he's talking about "what is moved" so his comment there only apply to things that are "reduced to act".
The statement "But, all that is moved, is moved by another" does NOT state that ALL movers are "reduced to act". It allows for the possibility of non-moving movers. There is no contradiction. You fail at reading comprehension - again.
No doubt you will continue to disagree so let's move past that. Your complaint is easily resolved by stipulating that (2) does not intend to state that all movers actually move. Your objection goes away.
In summary: I'm not convinced that any of your objections have weakened the argument in any way.
David Haines made a few comments here:
https://plus.google.com/+DavidHainesphilosopher/posts/hwb97cPvfoR
SteveK said...
>> This is blatant question begging.
" It's not question begging. It's common sense logic. "
The 2 are not mutually exclusive
"If something cannot move itself (an agreed upon premise),"
Just a premise, not necessarily agreed upon or consistently applied.
" having an infinite set of those same kind of things results in the same conclusion - a thing that cannot move itself. Therefore an infinite regress cannot produce the observed motion."
You are muddled. The infinite regress is an irrational alternative to the irrationality of an unmoved and unmoving mover.
All alternatives are irrational. That is why the problem is unsolved. Aquinas is blatantly begging the question in a vain attempt to solve the unsolvable problem.
" The statement "But, all that is moved, is moved by another" does NOT state that ALL movers are "reduced to act"."
Right, but the further premise does. Stop cherry picking what you want and read the whole argument. Learn how to deal with a matrix, not just one element.
" No doubt you will continue to disagree so let's move past that."
No, let's not. You are begging the question like Aquinas but in an even more muddled manner, and you are ignoring a matrix of logic, merely cherry picking whatever suits you at the moment, displaying almost no capacity for complex problem solving.
This is like solving a set of simultaneous equations by you can only think of one equation at a time. You need to develop the capacity to analyze whole sets of logical relationships or you will be forever lost as you are now.
" Your complaint is easily resolved by stipulating that (2) does not intend to state that all movers actually move. Your objection goes away."
Wrong, because of 2d.
Why do you keep running away from 2d? Is this a conscious diversion or a subconscious defense mechanism against facing the blatant irrationality of the First Way?
March 06, 2017 9:44 AM
>> That is why the problem is unsolved.
Meaning your rebuttals haven't resolved anything.
>> Wrong, because of 2d.
Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others. It's another one of your rebuttals that haven't convinced very many people that the argument is flawed. There's a reason for that.
My position is that the argument isn't obviously wrong. It could be wrong, but I have no good reason to think that it actually is wrong.
Yours is that the argument is obviously wrong. You say that you have good reasons to think that the argument is logically flawed.
The reality is your reasons fail to convince the majority of people who have studied Aquinas in depth - the experts. This is not an argument from popularity. This is just a fact.
stevek: "Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others. It's another one of your rebuttals that haven't convinced very many people that the argument is flawed. There's a reason for that."
The standard for an argument isn't whether or not it convinces you, or anyone else.
The standard is the rules for argument itself: consistency, the clarity of the descriptions, the avoiding of informal fallacies, and the soundness of the premises.
No one cares if you or anyone else says you pronounce any argument convincing. Get over yourself.
The reason the rules for argument above are valued is because they can produce results.
Your pronouncing yourself convinced by a clearly flawed argument is not a result -- it's a measure of your thinking abilities. The fact that your flawed argument can produce no results (other than fooling you, and others like you, into failing to see it's obvious deficiencies) is the only "result" the argument achieves. Congratulations. You have bought a ticket to a lottery whose reward is muddled thinking and where only the blinkered win.
The First Way fails to meet the rules for argument in the many ways explained here, in a series of comments that may span as long as the delusions of the superstitious -- in other words, ad infinitum.
Stevek: "The reality is your reasons fail to convince the majority of people who have studied Aquinas in depth - the experts. This is not an argument from popularity. This is just a fact."
The reality is that the argument is flawed for obvious reasons, that you can't admit this, and that you have no way of resolving this in the way you insist because your argument produces no results. You've got nothing.
So you retreat to vague and fallacious claims, pretending that your or someone else's determination about an argument's conclusions is the standard we should accept, instead of consistency, the clarity of the descriptions, the avoiding of informal fallacies, and the soundness of the premises.
The vanity is astounding.
stevek: "My position is that the argument isn't obviously wrong. It could be wrong, but I have no good reason to think that it actually is wrong."
According to the argument, what is the good reason that a series of causes cannot proceed to infinity?
Please cite from the actual argument. And explain why this reason from the argument is a "good" reason.
From Wikipedia again:
"Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) frequently:
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series" for instance and the internet cranks' understanding, one will find the Wikipedia description apt.
>> According to the argument, what is the good reason that a series of causes cannot proceed to infinity?
I explained that. Others here explained that. Aquinas explained that. Feser explained that. The list goes on.
>> The reality is that the argument is flawed for obvious reasons, that you can't admit this, and that you have no way of resolving this in the way you insist because your argument produces no results. You've got nothing.
I've got the fact that it's NOT OBVIOUS to the majority of people who have studied Aquinas and philosophy. If these flaws are so obvious how come nobody sees them but Cal and Dusty - the Crank Brothers?
SteveK said...
>> That is why the problem is unsolved.
" Meaning your rebuttals haven't resolved anything."
Wrong, my rebuttals have resolved the false assertion that the First Way solves the unsolvable problem.
>> Wrong, because of 2d.
" Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others. It's another one of your rebuttals that haven't convinced very many people that the argument is flawed. There's a reason for that."
Indeed. The reason is that those who remain unconvinced that the problem of the origin of existence remains unsolved are irrational, at least in the portion of their thinking they apply to this unsolved problem.
March 07, 2017 9:27 AM
@bmiller:
I have battled many cranks in my lifetime, mostly in mathematics and physics, (anti-Cantorians, peddlers of Göedel woo, egregious distortionists of GR, etc.) and you are completely correct, although to be fair, I think the description fits Stardusty better than Mr. Metzger.
@grodrigues,
Perhaps we are just witnessing a "crank in training". :-)
grod: "I have battled many cranks in my lifetime, mostly in mathematics and physics..."
Sure you have.
What's so sad is that apologists like many of those commenting here, the ones who pretend that Aquinas's First Way is a good argument, let alone relevant to understanding physics today, are simply lost in a little bubble in which their imaginings are, at best, quaint.
From an earlier thread:
grod: “ Of course you are a clueless about physics. And really, about everything. For one thing because physics is absolutely dependent on mathematics, say calculus,"
Stardusty: “Actually you have that backwards, mathematics is dependent upon physics, as well as human concepts. Applied math is descriptive, not prescriptive. If the math does not fit observation the math is wrong. The physical universe is never wrong, or right, it simply is what it is.”
Stardusty: ”Our equations of physics and chemistry are restatements of conservation. / E=mc^2 is a ridged relationship, there is no poof term, nothing gets in or out. / 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O is a simple chemical formula, again, conservation holds."
grod: “Neither equations are "restatements of conservation", this is just dumb."
Stardusty: “Actually they are. Calling something "dumb" is hardly a convincing argument. “
grod: “ not all equations of physics are laws of conservation. There are non-conservative physical systems."
Stardusty: “No, that would be magic. I suppose for a theist that is easy to accept, but no, you will not find that in your physics text book.“
grod: “ Not all physical quantities are conserved, etc. and etc. "
Stardusty: “No, that would be magic. There is no poof in physics.”
grod: “Stop pretending, you are fooling nobody."
Stardusty: “You speak as though you have never taken a physics course, have you? If so did you keep your textbook? I have a collection of them and never once in any of them did I read an example where matter/energy was not conserved.”
Grod never replied to that last question. I wonder why.
Sad.
Apparently, ignorance is not bliss. It can make cranks cry.
grodrigues said...
" I have battled many cranks in my lifetime, mostly in mathematics and physics, (anti-Cantorians, peddlers of Göedel woo, egregious distortionists of GR, etc.) and you are completely correct, although to be fair, I think the description fits Stardusty"
Interesting, how have I distorted mathematics, and/or physics (such as GR)?
You have battled crank physics yet you adhere to the First Way? You do realize that Aristotle was wrong, don't you? I mean, you must, since you are such an expert in physics and all.
In truth, the only way to adhere to the First Way is to deny to progress of science in the last 700 years.
March 08, 2017 4:06 AM
SteveK said...
" I've got the fact that it's NOT OBVIOUS to the majority of people who have studied Aquinas and philosophy. If these flaws are so obvious how come nobody sees them but Cal and Dusty - the Crank Brothers?"
Because most people who study Aquinas in detail are Christian theologians with a strong bias toward irrationality on the subject of god.
You are apparently in that bubble. Outside your bubble, in the fields of modern science, nobody adheres to the First Way. Serious scientists don't bother studying Aquinas in detail any more than they bother with Greek mythology as anything more than a quaint curiosity.
The First Way has the credibility of astrology, alchemy, exorcism, witchcraft, Aristotelian physics, geocentrism, young Earth creationism, and a variety of ancient ideas that have no value in modern science. To the extent that anybody still believes in such things they are understood to be fools by those educated in modern science who are not themselves infected with pernicious theistic irrationality.
March 07, 2017 9:04 PM
Since cranks are unable to understand scholarly work, and cannot recognize that fact they then conclude that all the scholars are all wrong.
Dusty's last comment is further proof that he doesn't even understand the argument and is ignorantly biased against it. Nothing has changed over the course of 600+ comments
Rinse/Repeat
SteveK said...
" Dusty's last comment is further proof that he doesn't even understand the argument and is ignorantly biased against it. Nothing has changed over the course of 600+ comments"
In over 600 comments you and all theists here have failed to follow a rational, comprehensive, and consistent analysis of the first way. You, as all theists, simply repeat meaningless snippets such as "crank" or "ignorantly biased".
You did make some halfhearted attempt to respond to yet another of my thorough reviews of the failures of Aquinas, but you sputtered to meaningful silence after
March 06, 2017 11:30 PM
returning to your habit of simply stating that "Wrong, because of my prior explanation and the explanation of others" which is just a shell game, a diversion, an argumentation equivalent of "look, your shoe's untied".
You are fond of saying "rinse/repeat".
Indeed, I consistently repeat my comprehensive set of reasons that the First Way is self contradictory, factually false, begs the question, is invalid, and therefore unsound.
You repeat a few half baked potshots at my carefully reasoned arguments, and when I show you to be wrong you just repeat your diversions.
You have displayed no capacity of any sort to reason your way through a whole set of arguments by consistently applying word definitions, valid logic, and sound assertions when speaking on the subject of god.
You have displayed no capacity for engaging in a thoughtful, focused, relevant ongoing exchange on the merits.
I have never met a theist with such capacities. All those with such capacities do in fact engage on the subject carefully and inevitably reach the conclusion that the arguments for god are unsound and themselves rid themselves of their irrational belief in god.
The only people left to be theists are either those who simply do not think about it in great detail, merely having faith, or those who try some sort of engagement but lacking the capacity for thorough, rational, deep, focused, and consistent analysis inevitably display a hackneyed, scattered, sporadic, irrational, inconsistent smattering of disjointed utterances, like all the theists here, for example.
But by all means, do give it a go
March 06, 2017 11:30 PM
See if you can actually address all those points in detail, and all the points in the recap I provided that led to it.
Do you have the mental capacity to do so? So far you have not displayed such.
March 11, 2017 10:22 AM
"1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions."
We can see from the comment sections that cranks consistently ignore and fail to deal with the common scholarly interpretation of the First Way while they insist that their own cranky ideas need serious attention.
Indeed they continue to insist on their cranky ideas even when the very sources they quote tell them they are wrong via email.
"3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial."
Anyone reading anywhere in in these threads can easily see that the apologists here have no rebuttals to the criticism offered of the silly First Way, over and over and over by skeptics here.
All that we see is the apologist standard of pretending that the rebuttal to the criticism offered lies somewhere else, NEVER in the one place it would actually do some good.
Right there, under the fingertips of the apologist who types silly projections about cranks and ignorance and biases, etc. Right there is where the rebuttal could have gone, every time.
But funny, all they ever get around to typing are psychological projections, about their own ignorance and biases, etc.
I wonder why that would be. I wonder if it's because when they try and come up with the rebuttal, and they realize they can't, and they realize that no one has ever found a good rebuttal for the silly argument they've sworn to defend, they find that they've been dishonest, and they've been fooled, and they're largely ignorant about something that should be obvious.
And that's when they take those realizations, which make them so uncomfortable, and they project them onto the people who make them feel that way.
That's a popular theory, anyway.
I dunno. Maybe they're just genuinely shabby people.
Unsurprisingly and as predicted, the crank response is to ignore all of the responses offered as well as the scholarly consensus referenced over the last 680 comments and insist that only their cranky ideas need to be addressed. Ad nauseam.
It is helpful for readers to witness this happening immediately after it has been pointed out.
bmiller said...
" Unsurprisingly and as predicted, the crank response is to ignore all of the responses offered as well as the scholarly consensus referenced over the last 680 comments"
The scholarly consensus is that Aquinas wrote nonsense.
You can find this consensus in any college physics textbook. Do you own one? If so, please open it and try to find in it anything resembling Aristotelian physics, Thomist causality, or anything that is a derivative of Aquinas.
You are in a bubble. Only a fringe tiny sect of "scholars" find any validity in Aquinas whatsoever.
" and insist that only their cranky ideas need to be addressed. Ad nauseam."
No theist here has displayed the slightest capacity for addressing the glaring defects of the First Way. Every time I list them in comprehensive detail all that happens is a few scattered offhand quips in return, and then when I answer those quips there is nothing further from the theist. Rinse/repeat indeed.
For example
February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
I again, in that post, took a comprehensive approach. What followed from theists was a few scattered and shallow comments, and when I addressed those comments there was nothing further from the theists. Ad nauseum? No, not at all. No theist has displayed here the slightest capacity for engaging in a thorough, rational, focused, engagement on the specific topics at hand.
You have yet to provide an example of a motionless thing that is caused to move by a motionless thing. No theist here can explain how absurd the First Way becomes when "merely existent" replaces "act" or "actually" throughout the entire argument.
The simplist explanations for the failure of all theists to engage in a thorough, focused, rational exchange on posts such as
February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
are:
1. General lack of reasoning skills.
2. A selective mental breakdown on the subject of god specifically.
3. Lack of science and logic education.
4. Dishonesty coupled with a fetishistic pleasure of being evasive and non responsive.
But by all means, do prove me wrong, try, if you are able, to address
February 26, 2017 9:47 PM
By "address" I mean to hold in your mind the whole argument, and address each point in rational and logical terms. When your errors are then pointed out engage in a thorough, honest, focused, rational, logical, honest exchange.
Does any theist here have any capacity whatsoever to do so?
Just to make it real easy for you, I will lay it out again, in detail, in a few more posts below.
March 12, 2017 8:20 AM
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Response- The speculated god would have to have "moved" (changed or altered or undergone some sort of process) in order to be a "mover". For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. If this speculated god was motionless and then made a decision it “moved” itself. Even if no decision was made, if the speculated god was motionless and then “moved” in any sense it must have “moved” itself.
Thus on a previously motionless god (5) is incompatible with (2).
Alternatively, on a god eternally in motion the following is violated:
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
In either case, Aquinas defeats his own argument through self-contradiction.
a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13]
Response- False by counter example. I am part of all and I do not consider this to be god. Even if the failed logic of the argument could somehow be rescued the first cause, or first mover, or uncaused cause, or unmoved mover could be merely another inanimate state of existent something. Thus, this assertion is both patently false by counter example and unsound since it suffers from being a false dichotomy.
Continuing with some further points, in general, in my view, your listing of premises is abbreviated. A more complete list of premises illuminates flaws in the First Way including self contradiction, begging the question, and false assertion.
For example, what you show as 2(d) is actually a very important premise. Aquinas explains by example in addition to his argumentation that a particular kind of change change can only be caused by a thing already changing in the same way. Only a hot thing can change a potentially hot thing to become a hot thing. Thus, only a moving thing can cause a potentially moving thing to move.
We see then that the asserted unmoved mover violates at least some premise or combination of premises that Aquinas previously set forth.
Since 2(d) requires that motion is caused only by a moving thing then U was moving when U caused the first motion in our observable universe.
But motion cannot proceed to a past infinity, according to premise (4). After all, if motion could proceed to a past infinity then I would be the case and therefore ~U would be the case.
So U must have been motionless, and then moved. Yet premise (2) asserts all that is moved, is moved by another, making U not the first mover at all.
So, U must have moved itself, but that is a violation of 2(f).
In summary, Aquinas collapses under his own weight, or is hoisted upon his own petard, or whatever metaphor you prefer, or perhaps you prefer no such metaphor, in which case it is logically apparent that the First Way is invalid by the fallacy of self contradiction, and therefore unsound.
As I mentioned below, in my view your analysis is abbreviated, and omits certain elements that when properly included make the argument invalid, and therefore unsound.
For example, you write these lines:
C2) I (premise 4)
CC) U (premise 5)
But those lines do not fully represent the statements in the text. A more complete accounting of the text gives us.
C1) U (premise in 4a)
C2) U→~I (4a→4)
C3) I (premise 4)
C4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a)
C5) U→G (non sequitur, ad hoc, false dichotomy fallacy of 5a )
(5a also factually false therefore unsound)
(G is only a statement of personal understanding, not existence)
CC) G→E (implied that God exists, because U exists and U is understood to be God)
Legend:
G = U is understood to be God
E = God exists
Since you are working toward your PhD I suggest that such an abbreviated approach is not academically sufficient. Is it not reasonable that the full text should be examined, not a subset of that text?
It is true that by choosing only certain items as a subset an apparently valid (though unsound) argument can be written. I do not see any academic or analytical value in that approach. For example, why did you omit G? After all, these are arguments for God, five ways of arguing for God. God, very specifically, not an inanimate something, rather, very explicitly God.
In fact, without G, there is no argument for God. Aquinas very apparently recognized this, but could not make a logical connection between his asserted U and G, so he simply added a (false) assertion at the end, ad hoc.
Aquinas did not explicitly state his conclusion, the foundational reason for making his 5 arguments or 5 ways, "therefore God exits". The conclusion "therefore God exits" is left as an implication of a (false) assertion of an ad hoc understanding of U. Did you omit G and E from your notation in recognition of this exceedingly tenuous link?
BTW, perhaps I should have mentioned at the outset, the above comments were addressed to the OP, but by all means, do have a go at it yourself.
bmiller: "Unsurprisingly and as predicted, the crank response is to ignore all of the responses offered..."
This describes the comments feebly offered by the apologists here, yes. For evidence, read anywhere in the comments above.
bmiller: "...as well as the scholarly consensus referenced..."
This is the dilettantish language of the home-schooled; your writing simultaneously reveals your poor education, and your misplaced envy for what you seem to think a good education provides. You apparently think that a scholar is one who must instantly be granted authority on a given topic, when in fact a scholar is one who has acquired some knowledge through a process built not just on source knowledge but also on critical thinking.
bmiller: "...over the last 680 comments and insist that only their cranky ideas need to be addressed. Ad nauseam."
Your ideas are in the minority, so your silly attempt to mischaracterize your pet notions as mainstream just makes you seem even more out of touch, like the flat earther who takes comfort in the fact that virtually everyone who belongs to the flat earth society shares his views.
bmiller: "It is helpful for readers to witness this happening immediately after it has been pointed out."
Like most trolls, your narcissism betrays you. And by that I mean your narcissism is obvious, and it is also almost certainly tied to your inability to think critically; humility regarding our stance to knowledge is a key factor in beginning to think critically, and in this way I think that narcissists remain at a decisive disadvantage.
It also makes it harder for others to like you enough to try and help you.
Here I have done you all the service of using
act = exist
consistently throughout the argument.
Do you know what an equivocation is? To avoid this fallacy we use definitions consistently, not, for example, only in one phrase of 2(d).
Note, using this definition consistently turns the argument into immediate gibberish.
(1) For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves.
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in existence.[10]
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to existence, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in existence.
i. For example, an existent burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in existence, and in this way the wood is moved and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in existence and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense.
i. That, in effect, which is existent burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold.
f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself.
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on].
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13]
Most questions that a skeptic asks of an apologists, like the one that has generated these comments, touch on an important but usually unspoken subtext.
Skeptical question: Why don't you recognize these obvious problems in an argument you say is intrinsic to your belief?
Skeptic question subtext: "Is it possible that you have invested a great portion of your life to a mistaken belief, and that your group has collectively fooled itself, and that you are only just now coming to terms with the fact that not only you, but those with whom you have interacted and revered, have all been fooling yourselves?"
Apologists can't seriously entertain the subtext that is inherent to the question, and that is why they are apologists.
It is apparently taboo to point this out; I don't think it should be.
The only question that's on the table: "Could you be wrong that there must be a god, and that none of the arguments demonstrate that a god-like deity exists, and that you and a large percentage of the population are all wrong about your god-beliefs?"
Every apologist with whom I've ever interacted obviously cannot answer the question with a simple, "Yes." Not one.
And that is why apologists remain apologists. Everything else they talk about is a diversion from the simple fact that they cannot answer the question above with a "Yes."
Which is not to say that Stardusty's re-posting of the problems (for the umpteenth time, in a way that not one apologist has shown here he can even grasp, let alone rebut) of the First Way is not the primary issue here, but that there is a fundamental dishonesty inherent in those who pretend here (apologists) that they are even capable of or interested in reviewing the argument. They are not.
Pretend pretend pretend.
As I said before:
If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series" for instance and the internet cranks' understanding, one will find the Wikipedia description apt.
Cranks..
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
Internet cranks can not produce scholarly evidence for the definitions they make up and are apparently loud and proud of that fact. The world is blind and only they can see.
The lastest bloviation demonstrates #2
"2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important."
Stardusty Psyche said...
Per
SteveK said...
March 02, 2017 2:44 PM
You are the most recent, but not the only, theist to use the fallacy of equivocation to misrepresent 2d.
Just because I am such a very helpful guy I will trim this down to the sentences that become gibberish when one avoids the fallacy of equivocation by using
act = exist
consistently, and not just in one phrase of one sentence as apologists have attempted in applying this to one phrase in 2d
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in existence.[10]
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to existence, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in existence.
i. For example, an existent burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in existence, and in this way the wood is moved and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in existence and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense.
i. That, in effect, which is existent burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold.
Use of the definition
act = exists
turns all those lines to gibberish, and the whole argument thus becomes rubbish.
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM Delete
bmiller: "If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series" for instance and the internet cranks' understanding, one will find the Wikipedia description apt."
We get it; you were homeschooled.
bmiller: "Internet cranks can not produce scholarly evidence for the definitions they make up and are apparently loud and proud of that fact. The world is blind and only they can see."
We get it; you were homeschooled.
bmiller: "The lastest bloviation demonstrates #2 / "2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important." "
On the contrary; you can't imagine how unimportant we think the First Way is. Sic.
I think we have now a complete demonstration of all 4 of the defining characteristics of internet cranks:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Our cranks ignore scholarly articles explaining the First Way as well as the terminology used.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Our cranks just can't stop posting about their crank theories even while telling us how unimportant it is.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Our cranks can't admit they're wrong even when the sources they cite tell them they're wrong.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Our cranks, after having it explained to them for 690+ postings, still can't repeat back to their opponents anything but a cranky strawman version of the Fist Way argument.
Cal Metzger said...
bmiller: "If one considers the scholarly mainstream understanding of the terminology used in explaining the First Way like "in act", "motion", "essentially ordered series"
Thanks Cal, I didn't catch that little gem, very humorous, good for a little chuckle.
"in act"...well, just go couple posts up to March 12, 2017 2:42 PM and it is obvious that the supposed definition of the "scholars" renders the cited lines into total garbage.
"motion"...that's rich coming from our resident liar who has yet to produce his asserted example of a thing that was caused to move by a non-moving thing. Nobody can come up with any sort of change that is not a physical positional change either.
""essentially ordered series" "...that's a laugh riot, as though any serious study of causation uses such archaic language. I will refer anybody who is interested to "Against Measurement" by J S Bell as one starting point, and ask them to tell me where modern scholars find any use whatsoever for Aristotelian/Thomist language in modern discussions of causality.
Cal "We get it; you were homeschooled"
You think? Well, maybe. A lot of homeschooling is done for religious reasons and that would indeed explain the scientific ignorance if the parents were anti-science theists.
Maybe he went to Liberty University or some other crackpot institution.
March 12, 2017 3:38 PM
The more I think about it, this particular item seems to be the one that stands out.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Our cranks just can't stop posting about their crank theories even while telling us how unimportant it is.
They can't seem to stop themselves from repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum. When it impresses no one, their irrationality kicks up another notch.
I suppose it is not charitable to see how far they will go. Could they become physically ill? I don't want to be responsible for that.
Comment 700 is mine!
Criticism Number Eleventy of the First Way: bmiller is it's greatest defender, and his comments above are the best that he can muster in its defense.
Yikes.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Our cranks just can't stop posting about their crank theories even while telling us how unimportant it is.
Yep. Cranks just can't help themselves.
@bmiller, you're partly right in that I have a compulsion to speak up when encountering nonsense, or just witnessing shabby behavior.
What's your excuse for compulsively spouting nonsense and behaving shabbily?
Do you imagine that spouting nonsense and consistently acting shabbily helps you seem smart, and upright?
How do you explain your trolling?
Readers should notice a particular characteristic of our cranks. They abandon rational discourse and then complain when that fact is pointed out.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Our cranks accused a poster of lying here and here for only 2 examples among many (apparently cranks think they also have mind reading skills). When it was shown that were wrong here they merely ignored it and continued the false accusations. Was there an apology when the libel was pointed out? Nope. A perfect example of #3.
How interesting then, the temper tantrum and indignation that ensues when their behavior is accurately documented and categorized as "cranky". In Crank-world somehow posting the truth is considered "shabby" while cranks think it acceptable to libel their opponents. Perhaps the truth hurts if one is not open to it.
Readers should also note, it is not our job to change people's hearts with argumentation. We can only point out error where we see it. Only God can provide the grace to change hearts.
bmiller: "Readers should notice a particular characteristic of our cranks. They abandon rational discourse and then complain when that fact is pointed out."
Apologists like yourself have yet to rationally engage with the obvious problems pointed out in the First Way here. One can read anywhere among these comments and that becomes quickly evident.
bmiller: "Our cranks accused a poster of lying here and here for only 2 examples among many (apparently cranks think they also have mind reading skills). When it was shown that were wrong here they merely ignored it and continued the false accusations. Was there an apology when the libel was pointed out? Nope. A perfect example of #3."
Your links don't work. Oh, and you're deluded.
bmiller: "How interesting then, the temper tantrum and indignation that ensues when their behavior is accurately documented and categorized as "cranky"."
Your links don't work. And you're deluded.
bmiller: "In Crank-world somehow posting the truth is considered "shabby" while cranks think it acceptable to libel their opponents. Perhaps the truth hurts if one is not open to it."
You keep repeating yourself, but fail to rationally engage with the problems described in the First Way, the argument you purport to be defending. You are deluded.
Sad.
Cal,
Do you have any clue what is going on with this bmiller?
I have encountered some odd behavior on the internet, but I do not recall anything quite this strange.
I have attempted again and again to refocus on the OP. A few theists have made some half baked and scattered attempts to defend that deeply and obviously flawed analysis, but in the face of my repeated and lengthy rational refutations of their unsound attempts they just go silent.
This bmiller just keeps yammering away about nothing related to the specific argumentation of the OP.
WTF?
I mean, at least the Boston guy make some poor attempt at a partial logical defense before he quit in pathetic sputterings. And LoL tried for a bit but it seems the cat got his tongue too.
The host won't get on his own theistic blog and bring some semblance of rational discourse to this topic.
All we have left is some weird character bmiller who is utterly incapable of addressing the OP in anything remotely resembling rational argumentation.
I suppose all we can do is guess some poor deluded individual.
@bmiller:
Everything you say is demonstrably true, and I have said as much, but is it any worth repeating it? For the last 100 comments or more, there was nothing but accusations being flown around. What is the point of pursuing this? As Aristotle observed that:
"Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."
There is no rational discourse to be had with these ignorant idiots. Furthermore, as Bernard Shaw (an atheist, just in case this tidbit matters) also observed:
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
grodrigues said...
" For the last 100 comments or more, there was nothing but accusations being flown around."
Demonstrably false
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
" What is the point of pursuing this? "
I keep thinking one of you theists might actually begin to display some ability to engage in a rational, consistent, and thorough examination of the OP. So far none of you have.
I keep riposting the analysis of the OP in various forms. All I get in return is a few scattered pot shots at bits and pieces of it, and when I use sound rational argumentation to refute those poor attempts the theist in question either goes silent or starts throwing out bizarre off topic comments.
" there are people whom one cannot instruct."
Indeed, so far all theists here have displayed a lack of knowledge in physics as well as an inability to follow an argument consistently and accurately.
That would require that you read and understand the above posts, for example, and that you apply sound rational argumentation to the logical points made therein.
In over 700 posts no theist has displayed that capacity.
March 15, 2017 4:26 AM
@Stardusty,
I think that I know what goes on with bmiller, and with some others on this blog and similar ones strewn throughout the internets.
Like many apologists, bmiller seems to suffer from a pathology that includes narcissism, cowardice, and ignorance.
He is manifestly ignorant of a basic knowledge that you and I take for granted -- chiefly, he doesn't understand the underpinnings of scientific thinking. One can see that in the way he tries to fluff up his delivery of terms where he loses confidence -- he adds in extra words, like "scientific" in front of evidence, etc. He thinks that science (and knowledge) is about being granted authority and power, and he wants that, but he doesn't understand or like the part where science and knowledge are provisional and contingent. He doesn't want to know things; he wants to have authority.
He is cowardly in that he seems to constantly project his own obvious failings onto others, and like all apologists, won't admit that he can't even conceive of a world in which there is no god (and himself the special snowflake within it). Apologists pretend to approach the topic that they invite (god) with intellectual detachment, but they lack the courage to consider the question in the only way it can be considered -- without the premise that a god must exist.
Completing this troika is the other common thread of apologetics, and that we see on display here: narcissism. His obscure rantings make no sense, but bmiller struggles to recognize that because narcissists are so bad at intersubjectivity. bmiller just can't imagine that his internal monologue falls flat with an audience that doesn't see him the way he alone envisions himself. Narcissists are bad at communication, and they are also bad at thinking scientifically -- it's hard to understand the world when you can't adopt a stance of intersubjectivity, as opposed to indulging in self-involvement and the affirmation of sycophants.
So, that explains it for me.
As I think I've mentioned before, I don't enjoy the company of apologists, but I do enjoy engaging with them. And that's because I think their pathological thinking illuminates the interplay of forces that we all contend with to some degree, but that don't rise to the sort of broken behavior exhibited by the likes of bmiller.
Cheers.
Stardusty: "That would require that you read and understand the above posts, for example, and that you apply sound rational argumentation to the logical points made therein. / In over 700 posts no theist has displayed that capacity."
I think that skeptics are always at a kind of disadvantage in their interactions with apologists because we fundamentally approach the discussion to be one about rationality, whereas the apologist approaches it as a means to achieve respect and authority.
For skeptics, the discussion is over what is most likely correct. For apologists, the discussion is about implying that they possess valuable knowledge.
That dynamic explains pretty much every encounter I've ever had with apologists. It predicts most of the discussion, and it also makes me waaay less frustrated by the outcome. We'll never change their minds, but at the very least we can make their silly notions appear as ridiculous as they truly are.
Cheers.
@grodrigues
Thanks for the feedback. I think you are right.
There are 2 verses in Proverbs that are relevant here:
Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
26:5 refers to someone who has a capacity to understand, while 26:4 refers to someone that lacks that capacity. Although I had hoped we were dealing with the former, I'm convinced now that we are dealing with the later. I will follow your advice and Proverbs 26:4.
"I don't enjoy the company of apologists, but I do enjoy engaging with them."
You enjoy living a godless life in a western culture heavily influenced by Christian apologists. In a manner of speaking you enjoy biting the hand that feeds you.
stevek: "You enjoy living a godless life in a western culture heavily influenced by Christian apologists. In a manner of speaking you enjoy biting the hand that feeds you."
You enjoy living in a secular world that benefits extravagantly from the products of scientific thinking and the rejection of silly notions like the First. Way. In a manner of speaking you have little idea how much you benefit from the rejection of superstitious thinking.
David Oderberg's Article:
""Whatever is Changing is Being Changed by Something Else": A Reappraisal of Premise One of the First Way'" here.
Note:Requires PDF plugin.
Unlike your relationship with Christians, I enjoy being around those things and benefiting from them. There's the key difference.
Stevek: "Unlike your relationship with Christians, I enjoy being around those things and benefiting from them. There's the key difference."
I distinguish between Christians, and apologists. I have many, many friends and family members who identify as Christian.
Apologists, however, are the worst.
But what does this have to do with the First Way?
Cal Metzger said...
" But what does this have to do with the First Way?"
It is a diversion. We live in a post truth, post fact era. The alt-right has subverted the presidency and the pre-existing infection of theistic irrationality now has fresh agar to spread upon.
Boston Strong is mentally weak, like the other theists here, for example this:
grodrigues said...
" For the last 100 comments or more, there was nothing but accusations being flown around."
Demonstrably false
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
No theist here has demonstrated the slightest mental capacity, IQ, education, focus, or whatever it takes to carefully, consistently, logically, and rationally address the logical argumentation in those 4 posts, or any similar such posts.
The Boston Weakling made a half baked attempt and fizzled out, as all theists do.
I am an atheist heavyweight in the ring with theistic amateur bantam weights. One hand behind my back and one easy punch to the brain and the Boston Weakling is on his back blubbering and babbling, while I stand still not even breaking a sweat wondering if there is anybody who can even stand in the ring with me.
March 16, 2017 2:24 PM
Stardusty: "I am an atheist heavyweight in the ring with theistic amateur bantam weights. One hand behind my back and one easy punch to the brain and the Boston Weakling is on his back blubbering and babbling, while I stand still not even breaking a sweat wondering if there is anybody who can even stand in the ring with me."
This is all obvious.
But it then invites these questions: Why isn't this enough? What prevents some people from thinking rationally (enough)? What are the techniques that enable those who are deluded on a topic adopt a consistent, rational stance?
Cal Metzger said...
" What are the techniques that enable those who are deluded on a topic adopt a consistent, rational stance?"
Repeated exposure to consistent rationality in others. The realization within the individual that he or she is approaching life with a divided mind, using great mental skills to be successful in education and business, yet not applying those same skills to the subject of god and our origins.
Most atheists start out as theists because we are taught as children to believe in god. For the atheist the desire to be consistently rational eventually overcomes this superstitious miseducation.
Change happens over time, in increments, with repetition. Sam Harris once put out a podcast lamenting that none of the folks he debated ever changed their minds in real time. That is unrealistic. In truth the process is one of small corrections to various details that are realized to be irrational. Eventually the accumulation of these small changes leads to a tipping point to a new position, although not necessarily to anti-theism all in one step.
Some noted atheists used to be Christians such as Matt Dillahunty and Dan Barker.
March 17, 2017 7:00 AM
For those interested some common misunderstandings of the First Way can be found: here
bmiller said...
" For those interested some common misunderstandings of the First Way can be found: here"
No, those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way.
Reading skills.
You don't know the distinction?
The title of the OP there is "So you think you understand the cosmological argument? " FFS.
March 17, 2017 3:19 PM
"No, those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way.
Reading skills.
You don't know the distinction?
The title of the OP there is "So you think you understand the cosmological argument? " FFS."
Facepalm.
When one thought this could not get any more idiotic...
grodrigues said...
"No, those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way.
Reading skills.
You don't know the distinction?
The title of the OP there is "So you think you understand the cosmological argument? " FFS."
" Facepalm.
When one thought this could not get any more idiotic..."
Indeed. The cosmological argument is intended to be modernized in order to avoid the glaring defects of logically invalid arguments such as the First Way.
The link provided to that Feser drivel does nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way, rather, it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is.
These flaws are explained here
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
You have shown no mental capacity, IQ, training in logical discourse, thoroughness, or ability to systematically analyze a set of rational statements as is required to address these glaring defects I have pointed out in detail.
Hint: "facepalm" and "idiotic" are not logical refutations.
March 17, 2017 5:18 PM
Me: For skeptics, the discussion is over what is most likely correct. For apologists, the discussion is about implying that they possess valuable knowledge. "
Stardusty: "March 12, 2017 9:25 AM / March 12, 2017 9:27 AM / March 12, 2017 9:28 AM / March 12, 2017 10:10 AM"
grod: "Facepalm. / When one thought this could not get any more idiotic..."
Sic.
For readers who didn't read or ignored the very first comment on this topic and did not click the link to the Summa Contra Gentiles:
"[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle."
There's plenty more there for the honest seeker.
@bmiller:
I am going to break my own advice to you, so apologies for that.
@Stardusty Psyche:
Your claim in March 17, 2017 4:03 PM was that "those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way", and that bmiller lacked basic reading skills to miss that much when linking the post. But as anyone that has read it can tell very easily, it is you that lack basic reading skills -- as in, you have not even read it. Now, implicitly acknowledging that the one who cannot read is you, you change the claim to:
"The link provided to that Feser drivel does nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way, rather, it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is."
So now, Feser's "drivel" does "nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way", but instead, "it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is". Once again, anyone reading the article knows that this is simply false. For the simple reason that Feser *explicitly says* that, and I quote: "I’m not going to present and defend any version of the cosmological argument here. I’ve done that at length in my books 'Aquinas' and 'The Last Superstition', and it needs to be done at length rather than in the context of a blog post." So no, he does not seek "to reword the argument" in any way, shape or form; he does not even "present" it in the post, much less "defend it".
He does that in his books. And what arguments does Feser defend in 'Aquinas'? The Five Ways. I have the book in front of me, opened in chapter 3. What arguments does Feser defend in 'The Last Superstition'? The First, the Second and the Fifth Way. Book also opened in front of me. So Feser takes the First Way as an instance of the genus "cosmological argument" (which as anyone knows, is not a particular argument but a family of arguments sharing structural features), from which it follows that the listed misunderstandings all apply to the First Way. Which was the point of bmiller's referencing to it in the first place, something that not only you denied, but even went to the point of suggesting that bmiller lacked basic reading skills since he so egregiously misread Feser's point.
Here is a quote from 'The Last Superstition', Chapter 3, Section A, pg. 93:
"Now an accidentally ordered series, like the fathers begetting sons who beget more sons (and indeed like the countless other causal series familiar from everyday experience that extend backwards in time), could, in Aquinas' view, in theory go back forever into the past. He doesn't think any such series does in fact go back forever, but he also doesn't think it can be *proved* through philosophical arguments that they don't. That is to say, he doesn't think it can be proved, and doesn't try to prove, that the universe had a beginning."
But of course Feser's "drivel" must also be wrong; after all, Stardusty knows the First Way better than Aquinas himself, so a fortiori, he knows better than Feser as well.
To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. But that you are this unbelievably ignorant idiot, lack the most elementary reading skills and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag. Demonstrated innumerable times about basically everything, whether it is mathematics, physics or the First Way. The reason why it is pointless to argue with you is not because you are an "atheist heavy weight", but the prototypical crank, a sad, pathetic delusional kook laboring under the pretense that he has anything remotely interesting or relevant to say about the First Way. What you need is not rational argumentation, or knowledge (though you have none), but psychiatric help. And prayers.
Grod: "To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. "
Actually, that is precisely the point of these posts.
But, because you are an apologist, you would like to avoid discussion of the actual deficiencies of the First Way, and instead imply that you possess some valuable knowledge.
Because, I suppose, that is all that apologists can do.
@Cal Metzger:
"Because, I suppose, that is all that apologists can do."
And this is all that an intellectual fraud of an apologist for atheism like you can do. We should at least cut some slack to Stardusty since he is the prototypical example of a crank and a kook. You? The less said the better.
grodrigues said...
" So now, Feser's "drivel" does "nothing to justify the glaring defects of the First Way", but instead, "it seeks to reword the argument in tacit recognition of how deeply flawed the First Way is"."
Indeed, I am spot on with that statement, thanks for repeating it.
"Feser *explicitly says* that, and I quote: "I’m not going to present and defend any version of the cosmological argument here."
Yes, nor does he do anything to justify the glaring defects in the First Way. That post simply does not provide argumentation on those issues, which is what I said, thanks for demonstrating my words to be accurate.
"So no, he does not seek "to reword the argument" in any way,"
Of course he does. Modern cosmological arguments are re-wordings of deeply flawed arguments such as the First Way, in tacit recognition of the logical invalidity of those medieval wordings.
" shape or form; he does not even "present" it in the post, much less "defend it"."
He defends it in 9 points and he presents it by inference to what he apparently assumes is well known language he can defend without explicitly stating. Did you even read the post? If so...reading skills.
" He does that in his books. And what arguments does Feser defend in 'Aquinas'? The Five Ways. I have the book in front of me, opened in chapter 3. What arguments does Feser defend in 'The Last Superstition'? The First, the Second and the Fifth Way."
That is in a book, not in the post. He might address the First Way with argumentation in a book, but not in this post.
"suggesting that bmiller lacked basic reading skills since he so egregiously misread Feser's point."
You both lack the reading skill of knowing the difference between the post and a book. The post defends the cosmological argument and does nothing to address the glaring defects in the First Way.
"Now an accidentally ordered series, like the fathers begetting sons who beget more sons (and indeed like the countless other causal series familiar from everyday experience that extend backwards in time), could, in Aquinas' view, in theory go back forever into the past. He doesn't think any such series does in fact go back forever, but he also doesn't think it can be *proved* through philosophical arguments that they don't. That is to say, he doesn't think it can be proved, and doesn't try to prove, that the universe had a beginning."
Just that motion had a beginning. So what? Aquinas fails miserably as I have pointed out in great detail.
" But of course Feser's "drivel" must also be wrong; after all, Stardusty knows the First Way better than Aquinas himself,"
Indeed I do, but only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
" so a fortiori, he knows better than Feser as well."
Yes, Feser argues incorrectly.
" To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. But that you are this unbelievably ignorant idiot, lack the most elementary reading skills and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag. "
Fine, then by all means do provide a detailed, consistent, rational, valid, and sound refutation of my argumentation in
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I.
After all, you have a whole book on the subject by Feser. Surely he addressed all my objections. All you need do is read Feser and paste his refutations into the appropriate places. Should be easy for you.
March 18, 2017 10:50 AM
@Stardusty Psyche:
"It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
Your claim in March 17, 2017 4:03 PM was that "those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way", and that bmiller lacked basic reading skills to miss that much when linking the post? Responded to. Your claim in March 17, 2017 11:12 PM? Responded to. And this is why it is pointless to argue with you, because not only the most elementary reasoning flies by you, you are so arrogant and blind (as is typical of cranks and kooks) that you do not have the humility to recognize your abysmal ignorance or your howlers on factual matters that can be easily checked. The claim "That is in a book, not in the post. He might address the First Way with argumentation in a book, but not in this post" is just the typical mind-numbingly, point-missing, stupid rot that you spew. The point of the post bmiller linked to was not to address the First Way or any specific version of the cosmological argument and defend it, as Feser himself explicitly says, but to list typical misunderstandings of cosmological arguments, and why exactly they are misunderstandings. Or in his own words: "I will deal here with some of the non-serious objections, though. In particular, what follows is intended to clear away some of the intellectual rubbish that prevents many people from giving the argument a fair hearing." "Intellectual rubbish" is exactly right, as recognized by anyone that has read even a smidge on the matter, whether he agrees that the arguments ultimately work or not. And this can be perfectly done without presenting any version of the cosmological argument in particular because cosmological arguments share certain structural features.
And here is one more quote:
"Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning."
*All scholars know* and this is exactly right, whether they think an argument like the First Way works or not. So by all means go on repeating all these very same misunderstandings like the unhinged idiot and delusional kook that you are. As I have already said more than once, rational argumentation with you is pointless, what you need is psychiatric help. And prayers.
@grodrigues,
I've come to the conclusion that if certain people have not made an effort to read any of the responses offered or ignored them, there is no reason to think they will actually read anything you or I link or quote now.
When we refer to the writings of professors of philosophy and they consider it "home schooling" you can't really expect much from them.
However, I think it serves a purpose to continue to post for the benefit of others that may honestly be interested.
Grod: " To repeat myself, this is not a matter of whether Aquinas arguments ultimately succeed or not. But that you are this unbelievably ignorant idiot, lack the most elementary reading skills and cannot argue your way out of a paper bag."
Stardusty: "Fine, then by all means do provide a detailed, consistent, rational, valid, and sound refutation of my argumentation in
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
Why won't any apologists ever meaningfully address the refutations offered by Stardusty in the comments here, the ones that he's cited back to many times? Why won't apologists respond to any of the other substantive points raised in the comments here over and over and over?
Is it because apologists can only pretend that they are in possession of some valuable knowledge, even though they can never, ever articulate it when asked for?
Yup. That's what it is.
bmiller: "I've come to the conclusion that if certain people have not made an effort to read any of the responses offered or ignored them, there is no reason to think they will actually read anything you or I link or quote now."
You lack the discipline, knowledge, and acuity to even address the points raised by Stardusty. And that is why all you can do is imply that you are in possession of some valuable knowledge, and that is why you can never actually articulate what this knowledge is. You can only imply that it lies somewhere else in a way that is so vague as to avoid scrutiny, while pretending that it provides what you cannot.
Sad.
bmiller: "When we refer to the writings of professors of philosophy and they consider it "home schooling" you can't really expect much from them."
Reading comprehension. Every time I've raised home-schooling here, it is in reference to you, and your ignorance of basic scientific principles, and your lack of critical thinking skills, and your obvious insecurity over your poor education.
grod: "The point of the post bmiller linked to was not to address the First Way or any specific version of the cosmological argument and defend it, as Feser himself explicitly says, but to list typical misunderstandings of cosmological arguments, and why exactly they are misunderstandings. "
Then you should agree that bmiller's are irrelevant to the criticisms offered here. The ones that shouldn't be hard to avoid, even though you keep on avoiding them, because the reference to them keeps on getting pasted here for you, like this:
Stardusty: "Fine, then by all means do provide a detailed, consistent, rational, valid, and sound refutation of my argumentation in
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
You should try and focus on the fact that we're talking about the First Way here, per the OP. We're talking about the criticisms of the First Way offered here, and the inability of apologists to form a coherent rebuttal of the stated criticisms.
We're seeing, over and over and over, the fact that all that apologists can do is pretend that they possess some valuable knowledge instead of articulating that knowledge in the way in which arguments are analyzed.
Notice the difference in fluency between Stardusty's criticisms of the First Way, which engages with particulars of the First Way and how those particulars related to the argument as a whole, and the inability of the apologists here to do anything but handwave, divert, complain, and insult.
The difference is obvious, and the chasm between the two approaches is vast.
Sad.
grodrigues said...
@Stardusty Psyche:
"It should be very easy for you to refute these works of such an "idiot" as I."
" Your claim in March 17, 2017 4:03 PM was that "those are supposed misunderstandings of the cosmological argument, not the First Way", and that bmiller lacked basic reading skills to miss that much when linking the post? Responded to. "
Not meaningfully.
"Your claim in March 17, 2017 11:12 PM? Responded to."
Not meaningfully.
" And this is why it is pointless to argue with you, because not only the most elementary reasoning flies by you, you are so arrogant and blind (as is typical of cranks and kooks) that you do not have the humility to recognize your abysmal ignorance or your howlers on factual matters that can be easily checked."
Such as? You have not corrected any of my supposed factual errors.
" The claim "That is in a book, not in the post. He might address the First Way with argumentation in a book, but not in this post" is just the typical mind-numbingly, point-missing, stupid rot that you spew. The point of the post bmiller linked to was not to address the First Way"
Ok, then we agree, bmiller was mistaken here:
bmiller said...
For those interested some common misunderstandings of the First Way can be found: here
March 17, 2017 3:19 PM
" "Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.""
Which does nothing to address the glaringly invalid logic and unsound argumentation of the First Way as I have pointed out in detail.
" So by all means go on repeating all these very same misunderstandings like the unhinged idiot and delusional kook that you are. "
Then it should be easy to provide argumentation, but you are just name calling.
March 18, 2017 1:43 PM
@bmiller:
"I've come to the conclusion that if certain people have not made an effort to read any of the responses offered or ignored them, there is no reason to think they will actually read anything you or I link or quote now."
Oh I agree completely. I prove by extensive quotation that Stardusty is wrong on a fairly simple factual matter. Response? That I did not respond "meaningfully". Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain. And it is likewise pointless to hurl even more epithets (something that I did in my last post and deleted) -- truthful, but again, all pretty pointless and a waste of time.
Did that intellectual heavyweight, Dusty, just say that responses to his objections were not meaningful?
Oh, man that's embarrassing. LOL
grodrigues said...
" So by all means go on repeating all these very same misunderstandings like the unhinged idiot and delusional kook that you are. "
March 18, 2017 1:43 PM
Say there g, since I am such and unhinged idiot and delusional kook I will make it real easy for you folks.
4a of the OP cites the premise of "U", which is used in 4 to conclude "~I".
5 then uses "~I" to conclude "U". Thus
U -> ~I
~I -> U
Aquinas fails already by begging the question.
(see March 12, 2017 9:28 AM)
2d clearly states a particular kind of change cannot be caused except by something changing in the same way. Thus a hot thing makes a potentially hot thing hot. Attempts were made to interpret "act" as "existent", but only in 1 phrase of 1 sentence. If that is true than Aquinas fails by the fallacy of equivocation.
If, instead "act=existent" is applied uniformly to avoid equivocation the sentences become meaningless nonsense such as "c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence." To avoid equivocation Aquinas becomes babble.
(see March 12, 2017 2:42 PM)
That leaves the obvious meaning of 2d, only a moving thing causes motion, which is reinforced in the example of 4b with the moving cane, moved only by a hand, which is of course moving, since one never observes a stationary hand moving a cane.
Yet, with this very reasonable statement in 2d Aquinas proceeds to contradict himself regarding the first mover, "U". The first mover contradicts the premises of the argument! Thus, Aquinas fails by self contradiction.
(see March 12, 2017 9:27 AM)
Perhaps most obvious is the omission of both "G" and "E" from the notation of the OP.
(see March 12, 2017 9:28 AM)
Aquinas is arguing for the existence of god, not an understanding of "U". God, not some inanimate superstuff that gave rise to our observable universe. Specifically god.
Yet the OP omits this critical stage of the argument from his notation, probably because it is logically indefensible, Aquinas failing with statements merely ad hoc, non sequitur, and factually false just to get from an unmoved mover to an understanding of that unmoved mover.
Aquinas fails further to explicitly state his conclusion, "therefore god exists", perhaps from embarrassment at having presented such a deeply fallacious, disjointed, and demonstrably false argument.
Oh, but I am just an unhinged idiot and delusional kook so I am confident it will be very easy for every theist here to go step by step using thorough rational argumentation that logically refutes all my findings above.
The First Way is a demonstration of only one aspect of God, namely the aspect of being Unmoved Mover. It does not seek to demonstrate other attributes of God.
However, one may ask 'if God is unchanging, then how can he, for instance will something, since that would be a change?'. This question is addressed in another section of the Summa Theologica (which is for students of theology). However, it is addressed the same section of the Summa Contra Gentiles that was linked in the very first comment on this blog post Book 1, Chapter 13, article 10 (Also referenced in the OP) also linked in the first comment:
[10] It is to be noted, however, that Plato, who held that every mover is moved [Phaedrus], understood the name motion in a wider sense than did Aristotle. For Aristotle understood motion strictly, according as it is the act of what exists in potency inasmuch as it is such. So understood, motion belongs only to divisible bodies, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. According to Plato, however, that which moves itself is not a body. Plato understood by motion any given operation, so that to understand and to judge are a kind of motion. Aristotle likewise touches upon this manner of speaking in the De anima [III, 7]. Plato accordingly said that the first mover moves himself because he knows himself and wills or loves himself. In a way, this is not opposed to the reasons of Aristotle. There is no difference between reaching a first being that moves himself, as understood by Plato, and reaching a first being that is absolutely unmoved, as understood by Aristotle.
So, the movement or change referred to in the First Way is explicitly the movement of divisible bodies. This is a further deduction that can be made from the conclusion of the First Way although it is not actually part of the proof.
"Oh, but I am just an unhinged idiot and delusional kook..."
That is the correct conclusion one reaches when they read your comments leading up to this.
ng the various restatements of the First Way and examining how Aquinas intended to present the argument in his own words we can clear up some misunderstandings. For instance, here are the first 4 articles in the link from the Summa Contra Gentiles above:
[1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists.
[2] We shall first set forth the arguments by which Aristotle proceeds to prove that God exists. The aim of Aristotle is to do this in two ways, beginning with motion.
[3] Of these ways the first is as follows. Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
[4] In this proof, there are two propositions that need to be proved, namely, that everything that is moved is moved by another, and that in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity.
From this second rendering of the First Way (intended for those who were not theology students) we can see a couple of things.
One thing is that this version is more concise and contains the propositions with a minimum of support for the propositions. The support is provided in the following articles.
The second thing to notice is that Aquinas lists 2 main propositions for the argument just like the OP states:
For example, under premises 2 and 4 Aquinas provides support for the content of these premises. Though the support does not belong to the argument as such,
The OP also credits Francisco Romero Carrasquillo with the logical proof from this site:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
P1-A: Some things are in motion (m).
P2-A: If some things are in motion (m), then they are put in motion by another (a).
C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another (a).
[P1-B: If they are put in motion by another (a), then either this goes on to infinity (i) or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f).]
P2-B: They are put in motion by another (a).
C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity (i) or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f)
P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity (i) or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f)
P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity (~ i).
C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other (f).
So the logical proof follows Aquinas in providing support of his 2 major premises in order to reach his conclusion.
bmiller: "The First Way is a demonstration of only one aspect of God, namely the aspect of being Unmoved Mover. It does not seek to demonstrate other attributes of God. "
Congratulations. You have just discovered the incredibly obvious -- that the First Way does not show that deity exists. In the same way that a burning fire does not demonstrate the existence of dragons.
The First Way fails in other ways, but I am glad to see that you have (finally!) discovered that even were the prior argumentation valid, the conclusion of the First Way is hopelessly ad hoc.
Is the phrase "this everyone calls God" properly part of the First Way argument or is it merely showing that Aristotle's argument concludes in the classical definition of God?
This post explained the differences between the Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles wrt to the phrases:
"this everyone calls God" ST
"This we call God." SCG
February 12, 2017 5:59 PM
That post explains that while the ST was written for believing theology students (thus the "everyone" in that context was "everyone" taking the class), the SCG was written for non-believers so the wording changed from everyone to "we". The "we" referring to article 1 of chapter 13 of Book 1 being philosopher and Catholic teachers:
[1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists.
So Aquinas did not consider the phrases are not part of the proof, but merely to indicate the this conclusion was in line with what philosophers and Catholic teachers have used to prove the existence of God.
Stevek: "Did that intellectual heavyweight, Dusty, just say that responses to his objections were not meaningful? / Oh, man that's embarrassing. LOL"
They have not been meaningful. See your comment as further evidence for the inability of apologists here to make a meaningful comment.
Too stupid to realize your own ignorance. It's hard for the rest of us to fix that for you.
bmiller: "So Aquinas did not consider the phrases are not part of the proof, but merely to indicate the this conclusion was in line with what philosophers and Catholic teachers have used to prove the existence of God."
Oh, so the real argument that supposedly shows that god exists isn't the First Way? Somebody should tell Legion, whose challenge initiated these discussions. I think you should break it to him.
After all this, why are we wasting our time with the First Way if it doesn't do what apologists said that it does -- show that deity must exist?
And why do the arguments for the existence of god always seem to lie elsewhere, never where they're actually needed? Why can't anyone spell them out, but only refer to some other vague location that never actually does what apologists first claim?
Do you suppose anyone should wonder about why that is?
@bmiller, regarding your: March 19, 2017 1:02 PM
How does any of that rebut the refutations of the First Way offered by Stardusty, and referenced so many times above?
Because your comment seems to ignore the refutation offered by Stardusty, and simply repeat the same assertions that have already been refuted.
Do you understand that repeating a claim after that claim has been refuted is not considered a rebuttal?
Do you understand that declaring that you remain convinced by a bad argument -- one that has been shown to be fallacious only confirms that you are easy to fool?
Do you think, for example, that finding someone who will repeat the circular assertion that has been pointed out (refuted) many times here in many ways -- "P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity (~ i)." -- only makes it apparent that you don't understand argumentation, and that you seem to think that finding others as foolish as you is how one can demonstrate a claim. As if.
Apologists are easy to fool. We get it.
What we don't ever seem to get is an even basic understanding of how one responds to criticism pointing out the obvious failing of a once pet argument.
SD: "I am confident it will be very easy for every theist here to go step by step using thorough rational argumentation that logically refutes all my findings above."
'Kay.
"Aquinas fails already by begging the question."
You think this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs and know nothing of the difference between per se and per accidens for causal series. The first three premises demonstrate that whatever changes is changed by something else, and that if the agent of change was itself changed, then it was changed by something else, and so on. Having demonstrated a per se causal series, in which the agents of change have themselves undergone change and are operating simultaneously, Aquinas has also demonstrated that these change agents only have causal power as a derivation from something else. Without a first mover, a per se causal series is powerless to change anything, so nothing would happen. A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter.
So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter.
SD: "2d clearly states a particular kind of change cannot be caused except by something changing in the same way. Thus a hot thing makes a potentially hot thing hot. Attempts were made to interpret "act" as "existent", but only in 1 phrase of 1 sentence. If that is true than Aquinas fails by the fallacy of equivocation."
You say this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs and have no idea what "act" and "potential" are according to Aquinas and Aristotle. "Act" is not a verb in this context. To be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. Burning wood is not in act due to burning as a verb, but it is in act because wood has the potential to be in a state of burning, so when that state is achieved, it is in act. Wood that is not burning is also in act, as that is also a potential state that has been realized.
So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter.
SD: "If, instead "act=existent" is applied uniformly to avoid equivocation the sentences become meaningless nonsense such as "c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence." To avoid equivocation Aquinas becomes babble."
Again, you say this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs and have no idea what "act" and "potential" are according to Aquinas and Aristotle. Aquinas defines motion (to move) as nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act. In other words, motion (which every knowledgeable person knows is change in context) is the realization of a potential state. It is a potential becoming a reality. So, your statement "To move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence" is quite right, and is not even remotely babble to anyone who knows what they are talking about - a category of people that does not include you.
SD: "That leaves the obvious meaning of 2d"
2d says "But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act." This is saying "it is impossible for a potential to be realized, unless it is by something that is already realized". If you come up with any other meaning than that, it is due to having no idea what you are talking about, which has been demonstrated countless times in this thread. "Only a changing thing causes change" is not a premise anywhere in the argument. No one who knows anything about Aristotle or Aquinas would agree that "only a changing thing causes change" is a premise of the First Way, or that such a belief is part of Aquinas' or Aristotle's metaphysical beliefs.
(As an aside: The pathetic objection "hurr durr the apologists are saying a rock can make something burn because a rock exists" is so stupid that only a complete idiot could seriously think it is a valid objection. Do you think it is a valid objection? Also, no where in the premises is the idea that something has to share the attributes of the change it is producing - as in, something has to be burning to cause burning. Aquinas addresses both these "objections" elsewhere in his other writings - Feser describes it as the principle of proportionate causality - something you would know if you had any idea what you were talking about.)
SD: "Perhaps most obvious is the omission of both "G" and "E" from the notation of the OP."
I read the OP, and he does not omit this, so I don't know what you are objecting to here.
SD: "Aquinas fails further to explicitly state his conclusion, "therefore god exists", perhaps from embarrassment at having presented such a deeply fallacious, disjointed, and demonstrably false argument."
This is one of the stupidest things you or Cal have said in these threads, and that is highly remarkable.
As a bonus, regarding your post from March 12 at 9:25, you say:
"For example if this speculated god made a decision to “move” the substances of existence that decision itself was a “movement”. If this speculated god was motionless and then made a decision it “moved” itself. Even if no decision was made, if the speculated god was motionless and then “moved” in any sense it must have “moved” itself."
God does not make decisions - a benefit to omniscience. God is also outside of the temporal and spatial limitations of physical beings in this universe, so to say "God is here, and then he is there" as a change is not a valid objection. Not to mention that Aquinas devotes hundreds of pages and multiple works in describing exactly WHY these attributes can be assigned to God, when talking about being pure act, not of composite parts, etc.
But then, you know none of that, because you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm sure you'll dismiss these replies as not meaningful, and Cal will come in and heap adoration on you for how reasonable you are and how theism causes all these brain defects. However, rest assured that neither of you has the slightest inkling of how absolutely hilarious your willful ignorance and unjustified arrogance have been to the readers of this thread - assuming any are deranged enough to have read this far.
Cal: "Oh, so the real argument that supposedly shows that god exists isn't the First Way? Somebody should tell Legion, whose challenge initiated these discussions. I think you should break it to him."
When someone understands the argument, in the context of Aquinas' beliefs - a class of people that demonstrably does not include you or Stardusty - then a deity is the only reasonable conclusion. I stand by that.
@bmiller:
There are have been lots of commentaries and books on Aquinas, as is to be expected for a philosopher of his importance. I tend to prefer the neo-Scholastic wave coming after the encyclical "Aeterni Patris", and Garrigou-Lagrange above all; he is very thorough, very rigorous, going through it all in painstaking detail. Maybe not for the faint of heart, but definitely worth it if you can slog through it (I suppose this depends a little on temperament; since my training was in mathematics, I tend to value these qualities). His "One God" is a commentary on the first part of the ST containing thorough discussions of the Five Ways and of God's attributes and is, whole or in part, available online.
Dusty believes that if a series is infinite, then that series can magically cause itself to move.
Dusty believes that something like an infinitely long paintbrush can cause itself to paint a picture.
Dusty believes that something (motion) can come from nothing.
Dusty wants us to accept this extraordinary claim by faith without an argument.
Dusty claims he is an intellectual heavyweight.
bmiller said...
" From this second rendering of the First Way (intended for those who were not theology students) we can see a couple of things.
One thing is that this version is more concise "
"Concise" = "Dishonestly edited by modern theologians to remove the more glaring defects of what Aquinas actually wrote"
Of course you can write a better argument if you do not include the actual words of Aquinas. Aquinas wrote an obviously defective argument.
By taking a razor to his words you only prove my point that his words comprise a logically invalid argument.
You cannot logically defend the OP as written so you abandon it for your own language. You are merely putting forth a straw man.
March 19, 2017 1:02 PM
bmiller said...
[1] We have now shown that the effort to demonstrate the existence of God is not a vain one. We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists.
March 19, 2017 1:02 PM
bmiller said...
So Aquinas did not consider the phrases are not part of the proof, but merely to indicate the this conclusion was in line with what philosophers and Catholic teachers have used to prove the existence of God.
March 19, 2017 1:29 PM
You contradict your own quoted words of Aquinas.
"We shall therefore proceed to set forth the arguments by which both philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved that God exists."
God. G O D
Aquinas states flatly that philosophers and Catholic teachers have proved the existence of G O D.
Not an unnamed and undefined first mover, rather, G O D.
That is why Aquinas added his ad hoc statement of understanding as the last line, because he claimed to "have proved that God exists".
Clearly he failed and you recognize this fact so you present a straw man version of his argument and stop it prematurely at "U" because the full original argument actually made by Aquinas is glaringly invalid and unsound.
'"Concise" = "Dishonestly edited by modern theologians to remove the more glaring defects of what Aquinas actually wrote"'
Ah those Evil Dominican thelogians that "dishonestly" edited out Aquinas' words to expunge "the more glaring defects". Words edited out, that Stardusty, wearing a tin-foil hat and a micro-wave antenna, can divine the true meaning of, better than the author himself and all his commentators combined, by dint of his awesome powers as The "atheist heavyweight".
This is pure comedy gold.
And just a few moments more, we will have apologist for atheism extraordinaire, Mr. Metzger, wearing the verbal equivalent of tight skirts and pompons, cheerleading for this delusional kook.
Pure comedy gold, I tell you.
Who needs anti-depressants with clowns such as these?
Legion: "So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter."
Nope.
The subject matter is reality, and to what extent Aquinas's argument reflects that reality. You and other apologists seem to think that whatever Aquinas write trumps whatever reality is. I would say that this is a childish mistake, but the truth is children aren't so gullible -- only apologists seem to be able to fool themselves in the way that we see on these threads.
Aquinas's argument fails objectively to satisfy the requirements of a good argument. Good arguments are logically valid (don't violate their premises, aren't circular), have sound premises (the premises are testably true), and aren't ad hoc.
You seem to think that the problems above are somehow magically avoided by the peculiar language and descriptions of Aristotlean physics -- that if one can simply categorize things as "per se and per accidens" one can somehow then construct arguments that are circular, that violate their premises, that equivocate, and make ad hoc assertions.
Apologists here are so desperate to gain respect for their childish beliefs that they're rather fetishize medieval physics rather than accept reality. Pathetic.
Here's where you are apparently too stupid to see one of the problems, even though it's staring right at you, and has been pointed out, over and over and over:
Legion: "Without a first mover, a per se causal series is powerless to change anything, so nothing would happen. A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter."
And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely? Because, we are told in the argument, if there weren't, there would be no first mover. And why does does there have to be a first mover? Because if not the series would go to infinity, and if we went to infinity, guess what? Then there would be no fist mover. In other words, the argument simply declares that there must be a first mover because, otherwise (wait for it...) there would no first mover.
The only way that this obvious, glaring deficiency in basic logic can be ignored is if one determines that the words of Aquinas must be preferred over reality and the rules of logic.
Pathetic.
grod: "Ah those Evil Dominican thelogians that "dishonestly" edited out Aquinas' words to expunge "the more glaring defects". Words edited out, that Stardusty, wearing a tin-foil hat and a micro-wave antenna, can divine the true meaning of, better than the author himself and all his commentators combined, by dint of his awesome powers as The "atheist heavyweight"."
Hey, dumbass -- we are all among Aquinas's commenters.
Nice try privileging you and your fellow-deluded Aquinas cheerleaders into being the deciders of what makes for a good argument (apparently: if Aquinas wrote it, then it must be true!), but that won't stop the rest of us from pointing out that Aquinas's "arguments" have been relegated to the scrap hear for lo these many centuries for good reason.
To some extent we all offload knowledge onto other sources -- other people, libraries, the internet, our own later investigation, etc. But these discussions have made me more aware that apologists fall prey to the glitz and glam Christian flimflam that was largely exposed through the Reformation -- that apologists think that if the buildings are grand enough, and the high poobahs are sufficiently sartorial, and the hushed tones sufficiently reverent when someone utters the author's name, THEN THAT IS HOW WE KNOW.
Not using our own noggins. But by decoupage. That's what the Aquinas defenders espouse.
Pathetic.
stevek: "Dusty believes that if a series is infinite, then that series can magically cause itself to move."
You don't understand the criticism, or the problem in the First Way. Sad.
Stevek: "Dusty believes that something like an infinitely long paintbrush can cause itself to paint a picture."
You don't understand the criticism, or the problem in the First Way. Sad.
Stevek: "Dusty believes that something (motion) can come from nothing."
You don't understand the criticism, or the problem in the First Way. Sad.
Stevek: "Dusty wants us to accept this extraordinary claim by faith without an argument."
You don't understand that the First Way is making a claim, one that is easily refuted. Sad.
Stevek: "Dusty claims he is an intellectual heavyweight."
In relation to where he stands above stunted little apologists, he is correct. Sad.
grodrigues said...
"...this delusional kook."
Complete incompetence on your part to address the technical issues noted.
Hint: Calling somebody a "delusional kook" is not a logical argument or a logical refutation of an argument, it is a logical fallacy, do you know which one?
March 19, 2017 3:43 PM
I'll come back if/when the skeptics can give a valid objection to the argument that hasn't already been addressed. Until then, I'm out of here.
Legion of Logic said...
SP "Aquinas fails already by begging the question."
" You think this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical ... A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter.
So, this objection of yours is entirely due to your ignorance of the subject matter."
No, it is much simpler than that, as I explained in detail
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
C1) U (premise in 4a)
C2) U→~I (4a→4)
C3) I (premise 4)
C4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a)
In short
C2) U→~I (4a→4)
C4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a)
This is blatant begging the question by the text Aquinas actually wrote. It is just that simple.
SD: "2d clearly states a particular kind of change cannot be caused except by something changing in the same way. Thus a hot thing makes a potentially hot thing hot. Attempts were made to interpret "act" as "existent", but only in 1 phrase of 1 sentence. If that is true than Aquinas fails by the fallacy of equivocation."
" You say this because you know nothing of Aquinas' metaphysical beliefs"
Wrong, I used the word "if". Others here have made this contention, not me. "If" that contention is the case then Aquinas fails by equivocaton
" Wood that is not burning is also in act,"
It is in some other actualized state, not the actualized state of being hot.
Only an object in the actualized state of being hot can cause an object not in the actualized state of being hot to move to the actualized state of being hot.
That makes common observational sense. That is what we all observe in ordinary life. Only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move. Only a hot thing causes a cold thing to become hot. This is a very reasonable observation from our human perspective.
It also leads to Aquinas failing by self contradiction later in the argument as I detailed in
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 19, 2017 2:13 PM
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "If, instead "act=existent" is applied uniformly to avoid equivocation the sentences become meaningless nonsense such as "c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence." To avoid equivocation Aquinas becomes babble."
" Again, you say this "
No, I don't say this, others have said this here. I said "if". "If" we follow the assertions of others to their uniform application Aquinas becomes babble.
SD: "That leaves the obvious meaning of 2d"
" "Only a changing thing causes change" is not a premise anywhere in the argument. "
Of course it is, just read it. The language of the principle is supported by the example of the wood and again by the example of the cane.
A hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to become actually hot.
A cane is moved only by a hand, which is of course moving, since one never observes a motionless hand move a cane.
The principle is plainly stated in argument and by example. It makes sense observationally, and Aquinas is clearly establishing facts about motion based on observation using our senses.
" (As an aside: The pathetic objection "hurr durr the apologists are saying a rock can make something burn because a rock exists" is so stupid that only a complete idiot could seriously think it is a valid objection. "
Indeed, the idea that mere existence is sufficient to cause change is absurd.
The idea that any old sort of actuality could cause a particular sort of actuality is so stupid only a complete idiot would hold to such an argument.
Obviously, heat is only caused by a hot thing, and motion is only caused by a moving thing. Other interpretations of 2d are truly idiotic, so we agree.
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "Perhaps most obvious is the omission of both "G" and "E" from the notation of the OP."
" I read the OP, and he does not omit this, so I don't know what you are objecting to here."
He stops at "U" in his notation. You need to read again.
SD: "Aquinas fails further to explicitly state his conclusion, "therefore god exists", perhaps from embarrassment at having presented such a deeply fallacious, disjointed, and demonstrably false argument."
" This is one of the stupidest things you or Cal have said in these threads, and that is highly remarkable."
It is true that Aquinas leaves his stated purpose, to prove god exists, as only an implication of a personal understanding of "U", so merely calling it stupid without support is pointless.
" God does not make decisions - a benefit to omniscience."
Then god lacks free will.
" God is also outside of the temporal and spatial limitations of physical beings"
Oxymoronic and meaningless babble.
" I'm sure you'll dismiss these replies as not meaningful,"
Most are simply mistaken. The last bits about god are incoherent.
March 19, 2017 2:14 PM
SteveK said...
" Dusty believes that if a series is infinite, then that series can magically cause itself to move.
Dusty believes that something like an infinitely long paintbrush can cause itself to paint a picture.
Dusty believes that something (motion) can come from nothing.
Dusty wants us to accept this extraordinary claim by faith without an argument."
Please cite the post dates and copy my exact words here that support those claims.
March 19, 2017 3:02 PM
SteveK said...
" I'll come back if/when the skeptics can give a valid objection to the argument that hasn't already been addressed. Until then, I'm out of here."
Mental weaklings run like cowards in the face of rational argumentation. The Boston Weakling is incapable of following the arguments in detail with step by step careful argumentation. He either lacks the IQ, education, honesty, or rational concentration to do so.
March 19, 2017 6:50 PM
@Cal Metzger:
"Nice try privileging you and your fellow-deluded Aquinas cheerleaders into being the deciders of what makes for a good argument (apparently: if Aquinas wrote it, then it must be true!), but that won't stop the rest of us from pointing out that Aquinas's "arguments" have been relegated to the scrap hear for lo these many centuries for good reason."
Oh god, another absolutely idiotic comment. Here we have a delusional kook presenting a conspiracy theory where "modern theologians" have "dishonestly edited" Aquinas' words and you, a complete dumbass of a moron, somehow misreads it as me "privileging" some group as the final arbiters of what makes a good argument. Such stupidity is so rare and deep, that I am in awe. Tell me, how does it feel to be a moron? Do you hear the sound of the angry wind rattling in your empty skull?
@Stardusty Psyche:
"Complete incompetence on your part to address the technical issues noted."
The fact that you miss the responses -- which have been given by many people, many times, over the course of hundreds of comments -- is simply the demonstrably true fact that you are a moron with the IQ of a dead gerbil. You would not know "competence" if it bit your nose off. "Not meaningful" was your latest response, to a factual matter that can be easily checked by reading the linked post, and is an accurate index of the ignorant idiot that you are, living in a fantasy land where you are some sort of "atheist heavyweight" in the ring of rational argumentation. But do continue, oh please do. Your performances combine at the same time the hilarious ignorant stupidity and arrogant hubris of a buffoon, that one would be ungrateful to such a comedic gift not to laugh in your face.
grodrigues said...
@Stardusty Psyche: "Complete incompetence on your part to address the technical issues noted."
" The fact that you miss the responses"
Nope, I respond in detail to every post of any substance that is addressed to me. If you can find a counter example please cite that oversight and I will correct it by responding to it.
Note, you again provide no specifics, no link, no example, just an empty accusation.
Ironic you show complete incompetence to address the technical issues in a post contesting my assertion of that property to you.
" -- which have been given by many people, many times, over the course of hundreds of comments --"
Mostly insubstantial (such as this post of yours) although a few have made some efforts to provide actual argumentation. Invariably I quickly show that argumentation to be unsound and the individual then goes silent or blurts out a pointless ad hominem. Alternatively the individual ironically agrees with me without even realizing such, and when I point that out the typical response is silence.
" You would not know "competence" if it bit your nose off."
A competent reply must at least provide a logical, step by step, evidence based, rational argument on topic. So far you have provided no such thing to my very detailed arguments showing the First Way to be logically invalid.
But by all means, give it a go. I mean, your posts are full of personal vitriol, but thus far lack any substantial logical argumentation. You certainly have been completely lacking in any capacity to engage in a sustained on-topic discussion of a particular logical sequence, say the begging the question fallacy, or the self contradiction fallacy, or the ad hoc fallacy.
March 20, 2017 5:20 AM
@grodrigues,
Thanks for the tip on Garrigou-Lagrange's "One God". I'll look it up.
It seems that a lot of people struggle with the concept of act and potency and I've been looking for something less than book length to link to. I did come across this from Garrigou-Lagrange: http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality6.php from "REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought", but as you mention he goes into great detail and it is probably too much to introduce someone new to the idea.
BTW folks, I just realized I typographically omitted a tilde in one position in several posts.
Fortunately, this typographic omission has no effect on my arguments because it is included correctly before and after that position, so the arguments flow correctly, but one line is not symbolized correctly.
Apparently the folks here either did not read it, or understand the argument, or were just too busy attributing various ad hominems to me to actually understand the importance of that negation symbol.
Oh how crushingly dreadful it is to discover that I am all of these things:
moron with the IQ of a dead gerbil
ignorant idiot
buffoon
unhinged idiot
delusional kook
tilde dropper
But then, none of my detractors even noticed this error, so what does that make them?
Of course, due credit should be given for the astutely cited association between my brain and the brain a a dead rodent. Superlative rational argumentation indeed, highly commendable and admirable to say the very least.
@SteveK:
"I'll come back if/when the skeptics can give a valid objection to the argument that hasn't already been addressed. Until then, I'm out of here."
You are a much wiser man than I am.
"Of course, due credit should be given for the astutely cited association between my brain and the brain a a dead rodent. Superlative rational argumentation indeed, highly commendable and admirable to say the very least."
Stardusty, the comedy gift that keeps on giving.
Stardusty is the loony black knight in this immortal Monty Python sketch.
bmiller said...
" http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality6.php from "REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought", "
The link is a confused and vague mess.
Of course it is, it attempts to explain Aristotelian notions of physics and causality.
Aristotle was wrong. Try to get that straight, OK?
I use the vernacular of "act", "potency" and various asserted sorts of causality only as a doctor uses layman's terms, or as an adult uses the vocabulary of the child he is communicating with.
The link gives some vague drivel about various definitions of "potency" but does not really define "act" explicitly. It is left to the reader to absorb paragraph after paragraph of vague confused fuzzy nonsense until the reader has some cloudy affinity for this foolishness.
No serious study of causality uses Aristotle, "act" and "potency". That would be like studying astronomy using Ptolemy and epicycles.
But by all means, give it a go. Anybody, can you boil down that confused ancient nonsense in the link to some concise definitions of what "act" and "potency" supposedly are?
March 20, 2017 5:55 AM
With apologists, why is the answer always in some vague and uncheckable somewhere else, instead of right here on the page, where it would actually do some good?
--------
Do you apologists ever wonder why it is those like Stardusty and myself can seemingly instantly assimilate the gist of comments (even when they are mostly or entirely nonsense), and respond to them directly and cogently? I imagine that this must seem almost magical to you all.
Do you know what the trick is? We're merely applying critical thinking to the concepts being discussed, and responding to them by applying straightforward principles like consistency and the rules of argument. Once you start to adopt that approach, instead of one which demands a haphazard and ad hoc approach, responding is easy and fun.
Plus it might make you all a little less cranky. Evidently, being an apologist is just kind of a struggle.
Cal: "You and other apologists seem to think that whatever Aquinas write trumps whatever reality is."
I've skipped multiple comments since I've been gone, but to my knowledge, none of us have done anything remotely resembling this, so I'm going to chalk it up as yet another instance of an ignorant and arrogant atheist projecting his own intellectual failures onto his opponents.
Cal: "Aquinas's argument fails objectively to satisfy the requirements of a good argument. Good arguments are logically valid (don't violate their premises, aren't circular), have sound premises (the premises are testably true), and aren't ad hoc."
We have demonstrated at length that every single objection you two have raised is flawed. It is not our fault that neither of you possesses the intellectual honesty to allow a chink in your close-minded, anti-religious ideology.
Cal: "You seem to think that the problems above are somehow magically avoided by the peculiar language and descriptions of Aristotlean physics -- that if one can simply categorize things as "per se and per accidens" one can somehow then construct arguments that are circular, that violate their premises, that equivocate, and make ad hoc assertions."
This shows an abysmal lack of reading comprehension on your part, as well as a profound ignorance of the subject matter. If you don't know what Aristotle and Aquinas mean by their terminology, and if you don't know the foundational principles behind the terminology and the arguments, then you are not qualified to judge the argument. Neither you nor Stardusty has the slightest clue what you are talking about, which is why you keep embarrassing yourselves every time you post.
Cal: "Apologists here are so desperate to gain respect for their childish beliefs that they're rather fetishize medieval physics rather than accept reality. Pathetic."
Atheists here are so desperate to not allow even the slightest foothold for something that could support belief in God that they'd rather make utter fools of themselves publically by abandoning the use of reason. Pathetic.
Cal: "Here's where you are apparently too stupid to see one of the problems"
There are two problems in this thread, and both of them are apparently too stupid to realize it. (Hint: Neither is an apologist.)
Cal: And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?"
The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable.
Cal: "The only way that this obvious, glaring deficiency in basic logic can be ignored is if one determines that the words of Aquinas must be preferred over reality and the rules of logic."
We agree that your First Strawman argument is a horrible argument. The problem is you aren't capable of realizing that the First Strawman and the First Way are completely different arguments.
Pathetic.
SD: "This is blatant begging the question by the text Aquinas actually wrote. It is just that simple."
If by "simple" you mean that your objections are based in nothing but ignorance, as we have all explained and demonstrated, then I agree it is just that simple. Incidentally, your argument layout with all the C's and U's is not even remotely helpful to clarity, unless you put the key in every post you use it. I'm confident your attempt at reasoning there is flawed, based on everything else you've written here, but it's not worth having to go back and find that first post every time to refresh what everything represents.
SD: "Wrong, I used the word "if"."
Wrong, because I am commenting on your entire analysis - what you (wrongly) think the argument is saying, and your thoughts on what the "if" implicates - also wrong. Simply put, you're wrong. Again.
SD: "It is in some other actualized state, not the actualized state of being hot."
Okay...
SD: "It also leads to Aquinas failing by self contradiction later in the argument as I detailed in..."
You guys are so hung up in the physical details, rather than the concept being discussed. The method of the transference of causal power is utterly irrelevant to the argument - what is important, is that a potential state can only be realized by the causal power of something else that is existent. It was both obvious to Aristotle and Aquinas, and state elsewhere in their writings, that being existent does not grant infinite causal power, so obviously there are limitations as to what effects a cause can bring about.
As to the explanation as to how God can be the First Mover without violating the premise, I touched on the explanation just to feel out your reaction, and with you declaring it to be "meaningless babble" based on your remarkable ignorance and blinding commitment to the automatic rejection of anything contradicting your worldview, it's frankly not worth explaining to someone who doesn't actually want to know. I guess we'll both walk away thinking the other has no idea what he is talking about and is blinded by his ideology, but only I'll be correct in thinking so.
SD: "Of course it is"
No, it isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about, and have no interest in correcting it. Probably due to the fear you would experience if the first chink appeared in your flimsy suit of ideological armor against belief in God.
SD: "Then god lacks free will."
Uh huh.
Me: "And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?"
Legion: "The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable."
From the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on].
(4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
Yup. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who's so dishonest they have to deny reality in order to avoid facing it.
'"And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?"
Legion: "The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable."
From the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on].
(4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
Yup. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who's so dishonest they have to deny reality in order to avoid facing it."'
Take a gander ladies and gents, as new lows in ignorant stupidity are continuously reached, where "cannot proceed to infinity" yanked out of all surrounding context is somehow the same as saying that "reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which as Legion of Logic correctly said, the argument does not say. Anywhere. And which by the way, is something that Aquinas *explicitly* says it *cannot* be proved and is not in the least bit interested in proving. And then Mr. Ignorant Dumbass can write such stuff as "why it is those like Stardusty and myself can seemingly instantly assimilate the gist of comments (even when they are mostly or entirely nonsense), and respond to them directly and cogently?"
Watching these two delusional kooks pretending they can mount the bare semblance of a rational argument and fumbling egregiously at every turn is so hilarious. But please do not let the true charges of ignorant dumbassery prevent Mr. Metzger from continuing. Let me just get the popcorn. Now, what is the next piece of hilarious idiocy he has for us?
grod: "Take a gander ladies and gents, as new lows in ignorant stupidity are continuously reached, where "cannot proceed to infinity" yanked out of all surrounding context ..."
And now the OP is out of context?
This is pretty awesome bizarro world stuff for you guys, even by apologist standards.
grod: "...is somehow the same as saying that "reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which as Legion of Logic correctly said, the argument does not say."
Yes it does. Exactly where I quoted it.
I'll quote it again.
From the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on].
(4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
If you think it's been taken out of context, just cite from the OP the part that changes the meaning of what I quoted.
grod: "Now, what is the next piece of hilarious idiocy he has for us?"
I dunno. I just write stuff down, and after a little while the idiocy seems to just appear underneath. I know, weird.
And also a little sad.
"grod: "...is somehow the same as saying that "reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which as Legion of Logic correctly said, the argument does not say."
Yes it does. Exactly where I quoted it."
And Mr. Ignorant Dumbass doubles down -- what else can he do? I will repeat myself (that is another aspect of kooks -- they lack elementary reading skills): among other reasons, the phrase "cannot proceed to infinity" has a subject and it is not "per accidens causal series". What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity, not that reality is a causal series of any sort, or that per accidens causal series "cannot stretch to infinity".
But I will let Mr. Ignorant Dumbass go on and display his awesome powers of instant assimilation and -- make an ass of himself.
Context: That which moves is moved by another, and this by another [and so on]. But this cannot proceed to infinity because there would STILL be no movement. Why? Because that which is moved is moved by another.
The argument DOES NOT say a series cannot stretch to infinity. Go ahead and assume it does because it gets you nowhere.
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
@grodrigues,
"What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity,"
That was merciful.
But since this has been explained since the "Aswedenism" days I don't expect it to stick.
I know it's pointless because the intellectual heavyweight won't read it, but here it is.
"He seems to think that what Aquinas was concerned to show is that if you lay out a series of causes ordered per se in a straight line, the line will necessarily have a beginning. But that is not what he was concerned to show. As Thomists sometimes point out, it wouldn’t change things in the least if we granted for the sake of argument that a series of causes ordered per se might loop around back on itself in a circle, or even that it might extend forward and backward infinitely. For the point is that as long as the members of such a circular or infinite chain of causes have no independent causal power of their own, there will have to be something outside the series which imparts to them their causal efficacy."
More HERE
Me: "And why does the argument tell us that reality must be a per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely?"
Legion: "The argument...doesn't say that. Unbelievable."
Me, quoting from the OP: "(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. / (4) But THIS CANNOT PROCEED TO INFINITY:"
grod: "What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity, not that reality is a causal series of any sort, or that per accidens causal series "cannot stretch to infinity"."
grod (earlier): "So Feser takes the First Way as an instance of the genus "cosmological argument" (which as anyone knows, is not a particular argument but a family of arguments sharing structural features), from which it follows that the listed misunderstandings all apply to the First Way."
The Cambridge Dictionary: "Cosmology: the study of the nature and origin of the universe"
I'll leave grod and the rest of you to choke on your own words.
Not that they apparently mean anything to any of you. But out here in Ree-Al-Uh-Tee, words do still mean something.
Cheers, cracker-jacks. Thanks for putting on quite the show.
"grod: "What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity, not that reality is a causal series of any sort, or that per accidens causal series "cannot stretch to infinity"."
grod (earlier): "So Feser takes the First Way as an instance of the genus "cosmological argument" (which as anyone knows, is not a particular argument but a family of arguments sharing structural features), from which it follows that the listed misunderstandings all apply to the First Way."
The Cambridge Dictionary: "Cosmology: the study of the nature and origin of the universe
I'll leave grod and the rest of you to choke on your own words."
And he triples down -- what else is he gonna do? There is no inconsistency between the two quoted phrases by me. The moron brain-farted and did not even make a noise. Outstanding. The fact that cosmology, as modernly understood, is "the study of the nature and origin of the universe" does not entail that the First Way makes any claims about the entirety of the universe, much less that "reality must be a per accidens causal series" or that Aquinas set out to prove "per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which is *demonstrably* false. Only the brainless empty skull of Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok could make such an inference.
Furthermore, as if the above were not enough, while some cosmological arguments proceed by considering the entirety of the universe, the First Way does *not* as any Thomist commentator -- you know, the actual defenders of the argument, and so the ones to ask about details on the argument, not Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok or the psycho kook -- will inform any reader wishing to know. In fact, this is one of the misunderstandings listed by Feser in the post bmiller linked to, which, if Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok had read would have saved him yet another epic fail. Granted, he cannot read, but still...
Mr. I-am-a-dumbass-and-i-am-ok is so *desperate* to avoid recognizing what is obvious to anyone, that he does not have the least idea of what he is talking about, that he is going kookier with the passing time, mumbling an ever more incoherent babble, a kind of infantile regression. Fascinating. It must be all those awesome powers of assimilation.
"Cheers, cracker-jacks. Thanks for putting on quite the show."
Do not be coy, you and the delusional psycho kook are the stars of the freak show here.
Welp, that was my last effort. It's apparent that Cal and SD are incapable of understanding the argument, so they are going to keep attacking the First Strawman. It's funny that so many of their errors could have been avoided simply by reading the links we posted and trying to understand the argument and underlying principles and terminology, but the combination of anti-religious delusion and blinding atheistic ideology makes it impossible for them to objectively discuss anything related to God or Christianity.
Wow, this thread is still going!
I think the critics of the First Way are basically saying that there really is no such thing as an essentially ordered series? SD and Cal, is that right?
@grodrigues,
That's one of my favorite Monty Python skits! I'm laughing just thinking about it :-)
Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms.
Legion of Logic said...
" your argument layout with all the C's and U's is not even remotely helpful to clarity, unless you put the key in every post you use it."
The key is in the OP. You say you read the OP, okay, but you sometimes do not recall its details. See the OP for the key.
SD: "It also leads to Aquinas failing by self contradiction later in the argument as I detailed in..."
" You guys are so hung up in the physical details, rather than the concept being discussed. The method of the transference of causal power is utterly irrelevant to the argument"
Reality is relevant. How real causality really works is relevant. Aquinas did not understand causality because nobody understood causality at that time. No serious discussion of causality references Aristotle or Aquinas except as quaint historical mythology or pre-scientific misconceptions.
" - what is important, is that a potential state can only be realized by the causal power of something else that is existent. It was both obvious to Aristotle and Aquinas, and state elsewhere in their writings, that being existent does not grant infinite causal power, so obviously there are limitations as to what effects a cause can bring about."
Right, only a hot thing makes a non-hot thing hot. Only a moving thing makes a non-moving thing move, as is clearly stated in 2d of the OP and its related examples.
" As to the explanation as to how God can be the First Mover without violating the premise, I touched on the explanation just to feel out your reaction, and with you declaring it to be "meaningless babble" based on your remarkable ignorance"
Acutally I can show you how incoherent your assertions are in that respect. But that is another discussion.
The First Way is a logically invalid argument by self contradiction, begging the question, ad hoc, false dichotomy, and it is unsound by false premise.
.
SD: "Then god lacks free will."
" Uh huh."
At last we agree :-) Omniscience negates free will. Lack of decision making means god is a pre-determined robot. But those are other discussions.
Sorry legion, you really have not addressed the specific logical fallacies I have pointed out about the First Way, not at all.
We have an OP as reference. That is my primary reference. That is where you will find the notation and the key and the full text English language translation, albeit broken down in the author's own way and invalidly notated, but at least it is a common reference document.
March 20, 2017 10:52 AM
SteveK said...
" The argument DOES NOT say a series cannot stretch to infinity. Go ahead and assume it does because it gets you nowhere."
That is a big relief!!! There is no need for a first mover because the series of causes and events we observe can stretch to infinity!!!
Our observed material existence has simply always existed with cause and effect stretching back to infinity!!!
March 20, 2017 12:59 PM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" Welp, that was my last effort. "
Not much of one. You have not followed the specific arguments in a rational, step by step analysis.
"It's apparent that Cal and SD are incapable of understanding the argument,"
I understand that the argument is invalid and unsound because it is self contradictory, begs the question, and issues a false ad hoc assertion.
You have provided no systematic counter arguments.
March 20, 2017 5:44 PM
Chris said...
" Wow, this thread is still going!
I think the critics of the First Way are basically saying that there really is no such thing as an essentially ordered series? SD and Cal, is that right?"
The language of Aristotle and Aquinas is quaint pre-scientific attempts to understand causality.
No modern discussion of causality even uses those ancient terms. I only use them in the interest of speaking in the medieval vernacular of the OP.
March 20, 2017 7:19 PM
Chris said...
" Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms."
Nobody here can provide a definition of "act" in any clear or concise way. A few links have been provided but they always turn out to be vague and lengthy fluff.
March 20, 2017 7:56 PM
Stardusty Psyche said...
Chris said...
" Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms."
I have asked for a clear definition of "act" from the folks here but nobody seems able to provide one.
March 20, 2017 7:56 PM
Chris said...
" Or perhaps, the point of contention can be found with the notion of "pure act" itself. According to the critics, act=existent which means that "pure act" means "pure existence". But, on the materialist's perspective, what could "pure existence" possibly mean? Existence is defined by mutability and therefore changeless pure act/existence is a contradiction in terms."
You can see that the First Way becomes babble when you use "act=existence" here:
March 12, 2017 2:42 PM
March 20, 2017 7:56 PM
Post a Comment