No, they don't believe in the concept of essentially ordered causes or pure act. Act as a concept has been explained multiple times through direct explanation and links, and these very clear explanations are described as vague. So if the very clear explanations of the concept of "in act" aren't understood, how in the world could they fathom "pure act"?
Also keep in mind that if you were adventurous to Google Stardusty Psyche and read some of the conversations he gets involved in, regardless of the topic, you would learn that everyone notices his lack of reading comprehension, his inability to admit when he is wrong, and his desire to nitpick what he can in an attempt to score points since he can't do so on the actual subject material.
That Cal cheers such foolishness shows the mindset of anti-theists.
Hey, Chris, now that you're back, why don't you respond to the question i asked before you left:
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
Cal to Chris: "Can you re-state your response because the other 10 that I've gotten from the others over these 800 comments aren't meaningful enough. I'd like to hear what you have to say so that I might dismiss it publicly as say it's *obviously* muddled, uninformed, vague or not very meaningful. This repeating posturing allows me to appear like I understand the argument very well, when in reality I have no idea what the hell Aquinas is saying. lolz"
It would be trivial for me to grab a "best" response from the skeptical responses here.
Why do you suppose it's so hard for apologists to select one?
Do you suppose that it's because apologists can only pretend that they've offered cogent rebuttals somewhere else, and they can't do it where it would actually do some good -- right there in a combox, under their fingertips?
grod: “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…”
What are you even talking about? The First Way tries to argue that the entirety of all things moving in the universe are ultimately moved by a god. That is the entire point of the First Way. This run-away-from-the-actual-argument “defense” of the First Way by the apologists here is one of the most comical things I have witnessed online.
grod: “…much less that "reality must be a per accidens causal series”… “
Really? Huh. From the OP: “It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.”
That’s pretty much as per accidens as it gets for you guys, now, isn’t it? Unless you maybe think that things moving other things aren’t part of reality? Wouldn’t surprise me at this point, really.
grod: “…or that Aquinas set out to prove "per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which is *demonstrably* false.””
You really should try to write more clearly — which which is demonstrably false? Does the which refer to what you think Aquinas did not set out to prove, or does the the which refer to demonstrating that the events that we observe in reality cannot stretch infinitely?
If the which refers to the first one (what Aquinas sets out to prove), then you agree with me that Aquinas doesn’t demonstrate that reality cannot stretch infinitely — he simply declares it by definition, making his determination that therefore there must be a first mover circular. As I wrote:
“And why does the argument tell us that REALITY must be a per accidens causal series that CANNOT STRETCH INFINITELY? Because, as 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.”
Circular.
Instead, if the which above refers to the second one (the determination that infinite regress of causal events is impossible), then it appears you agree with me that the argument fails to do this.
Either way, you appear to agree with me that Aquinas fails to demonstrate that the chain of motion of those things we observe (reality) cannot stretch on ad infinitum, and you also appear to agree with me that it is false that this infinite chain of events must have a termination can be demonstrated (without embracing circularity, anyway).
I think the objection of circularity doesn't stick. According to the argument, there must be a changeless changer because if there isn't, then we cannot account for the reality of change.
Chris: ". I think the objection of circularity doesn't stick. According to the argument, there must be a changeless changer because if there isn't, then we cannot account for the reality of change."
That's nice.
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
This is the kind of stuff that blows up in apologists face because they reject being consistent, acting rationally, and thinking critically:
bmiller: "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,”
Stardusty: “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.”
Legion: “ 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.”
Stardusty: “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.”
I can’t stress enough how much easier everything becomes when you just try to be consistent, instead of building these ad hoc castles of sand that apologists insist on concocting, over and over and over.
Chris: "An essentially ordered series is basically about instrumental causality. How is that not "up to date" or "non-scientific"?
Because the only place that scientism allows metaphysics to inform is, ironically, with the declaration of scientism itself (self-defeating and hypocritical, I know). Adherents to scientism only accept "knowledge" that is derived from the scientific method. They can readily accept something like Newton's law of inertia because SCIENCE, but discussing causality as a concept and not an empirical study? Not so much. That's why they keep trying to twist the First Way into some sort of pseudo-Newtonian scientific statement, which it was never intended to be.
Incidentally, I will concede that Stardusty was finally correct at my expense. The key is indeed in the OP, I didn't read past what I thought was the beginning of the footnotes, so that is my error.
Perhaps Stardusty can use this post, study it, and figure out how to admit when he is wrong. It's a skill he desperately needs.
" Also keep in mind that if you were adventurous to Google Stardusty Psyche and read some of the conversations he gets involved in, regardless of the topic, you would learn that everyone notices his lack of reading comprehension," Indeed, that does seem to be a consensus from many, often just before I am banned :-)
" his inability to admit when he is wrong," If somebody could use logical discourse to demonstrate an error of mine I would consider it a personal favor, since all the benefit is to me in that case, having learned something by the good graces of one who took the time to teach me.
Unfortunately for me, that virtually never happens.
" and his desire to nitpick what he can in an attempt to score points since he can't do so on the actual subject material." The subject here is the OP.
I have refocused on the OP time and again. No theist here has demonstrated the slightest capacity to sustain a detailed, on topic, in depth, logical discourse on the rational merits.
All theists here quickly disburse to side quips, ad hominems, or simply go silent.
" An essentially ordered series is basically about instrumental causality. How is that not "up to date" or "non-scientific"?
You need do no more research than a simple wiki reference to begin to answer your own question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29
I always recommend J. S. Bell's "Against Measurement" as another good starting point.
No serious modern discussion of causality employs the language of Aristotle or Aquinas.
To understand the very large we must immediately investigate the very small. That is why cosmology is dependent upon fundamental physics.
The First Way is an attempt to solve the ancient riddle of the origin of existence. It fails miserably. Nobody has solved this riddle. But to begin to seriously consider it in the 21st century one must discard the ancient and medieval misconceptions of Aristotle and Aquinas and instead turn to modern physics.
" I think the objection of circularity doesn't stick. According to the argument, there must be a changeless changer because if there isn't, then we cannot account for the reality of change." That is the circularity, also known as begging the question.
U -> ~I ~I -> U
That is literally in the First Way. U (premise in 4a) U→~I (4a→4) ~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a) March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
Begging the question is just one of the problems that make the First Way a logically invalid argument. Se my posts of March 12 for more complete enumerations of the many defects of Aquinas.
" Adherents to scientism only accept "knowledge" that is derived from the scientific method. They can readily accept something like Newton's law of inertia" Then I must not be a scientismist because I deny any such thing as Newton's "law" of inertia or anything else.
Newton was not prescriptive, only approximately descriptive. Newton produced no "laws", he only provided better approximations of truth than had ever been derived previously. Perhaps nobody was more keenly aware of his limitations than Newton himself.
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
" Incidentally, I will concede that Stardusty was finally correct at my expense. The key is indeed in the OP, I didn't read past what I thought was the beginning of the footnotes, so that is my error.
Perhaps Stardusty can use this post, study it, and figure out how to admit when he is wrong. It's a skill he desperately needs."
You, like all others here, have yet to provide any example of any error on my part.
I pointed out my own error about the typographically omitted tilde.
You certainly have provide no rational argumentation to counter my clear and often repeated refutations of the OP.
SD: "You certainly have provide no rational argumentation to counter my clear and often repeated refutations of the OP."
I have demolished your arguments at pretty much every turn, as have multiple others here. The problem is that you are incapable of seeing it, or simply don't want to. Fun fact: We don't have to get you to agree with us in order for us to be right.
SD: "You certainly have provide no rational argumentation to counter my clear and often repeated refutations of the OP."
" I have demolished your arguments at pretty much every turn," Where?
All you do is offer a retort on a couple things, and when I show that to be wrong you quit.
You have never engaged in a sustained dialog on any point.
Point 1 2d of the OP posits that only a moving thing can cause a non-moving thing to move. You have never countered that fact in any consistent way. I have heard some vague notions proposed of what "act" means, and read a couple of provided links that are nothing but long winded fluff, all absent an actual definition of "act".
No person here has provided a clear definition of "act" that can be consistently applied throughout the entire argument. Others have provided "act=existent", but that fails as I show here: March 12, 2017 2:42 PM
Nor can you or anybody else come up with a counter example, that is, an example of a thing that was moved by a non-moving thing. Nor can you come up with any examples of any sort of change that does not require a literal motion, a change of position of a physical object.
Since my analysis of 2d stands unrefuted demonstrating the self contradiction of the First Way is simple, as I did March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
Thus the First Way fails by self contradiction.
Point 2 The premise of 4a leads to the conclusion of 4. The conclusion of 4 leads to the conclusion of 5. But the conclusion of 5 is the premise in 4a! This is obvious begging the question and you have done nothing to counter this U -> ~I (4a therefore 4) ~I -> U (4 therefore 5)
This is obvious begging the question. You have done nothing to counter the fact that Aquinas fails by begging the question.
Point 3 The notation of the OP stops at U. Hines doesn't even attempt to make a logical link to God. The Five Ways are asserted proofs of God, G O D. Yet the OP stops short of even asserting the personal understanding of God (G), or the Existence of God (E). These steps are critical to the argument Aquinas is attempting, an argument for G O D. That is why Aquinas included 5a, because without it, there is no argument for G O D, and thus his Ways become pointless as theological proofs. U -> G (missing from notation, false assertion by counter example) G -> E (missing from Aquinas, ad hoc, false dichotomy, non-sequitur)
Legion, not you or anybody here has done any valid and sound rational argumentation to demonstrate my supposed errors in Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
You make a few vague attempts and then fizzle. If you cannot handle a sustained, on-topic, rational, focused, exchange on all 3 points, I would think perhaps you or somebody would be able to put up some such sequence of rationale for at least 1 of the points, but thus far none has been presented in over 800 comments.
Aquinas fails, I have logically proved this obvious fact time and again, you have made no substantial counter arguments, thus Aquinas remains failed.
Legion: "I have demolished your arguments at pretty much every turn, as have multiple others here."
On this page your comments above are:
2 off-topic comments directed to Chris. 1 admission that you had not read the OP, and mistook Legion's use of the OP's notation as somehow confusing the topic; 1 gloating assessment that you are doing some kind of demolishing of Legion's arguments (refutations, really).
In apologetics land, does that somehow qualify as demolishing?
> "I have logically proved this obvious fact time and again"
You've proven some other argument fails. Nice work.
> "you have made no substantial counter arguments"
The counter arguments all show that you're beating up a strawman.
The remedy is to accept the multitude of corrections being offered and deal with THAT argument. Since you cannot be bothered with that task, we cannot be bothered to help you any more than we already have.
Nope. In the objective ways in which arguments fail. By being circular, unsound, equivocating, and being ad hoc. That's the top of my head, but those have been described, and no one has rebutted these refutations -- only claimed to have in some vague, unspecified way.
SD: "I have logically proved this obvious fact time and again" Stevek: "You've proven some other argument fails. Nice work."
The rebuttals have been used the OP as the source. If you think there is a different First Way somewhere you should let VR and the writer of the article of the OP references know, per you, that they are referencing the wrong argument.
stevek: "The counter arguments all show that you're beating up a strawman."
I agree that SD is beating up the First Way. But the First Way is what it is.
stevek: "The remedy is to accept the multitude of corrections being offered and deal with THAT argument. Since you cannot be bothered with that task, we cannot be bothered to help you any more than we already have."
If you think that the First Way is in need of many corrections then you agree with Stardusty and me that the arguments conclusions are easily refuted by dint of the argument being circular, unsound, equivocating and being ad hoc. I'm not sure how this can be corrected, although I gather that hasn't stopped generations of apologists from recognizing these problems and giving it a crack.
Apparently in Atheist Fantasy Land, ignoring the scores of posts in which I've demolished the weak attempts to refute the First Way, and emphasizing a few lines farther down in the OP that I missed, is proof that I have not demolished the actual (and failed) attempts to refute the First Way.
As Atheist Fantasy Land bears no resemblance to reality, I can only laugh. Yet again.
SD,
I have refuted most of those points multiple times. I'll do so yet again, with the exception of one.
Point 1: "2d of the OP posits that only a moving thing can cause a non-moving thing to move."
That is not even remotely what 2d posits. The actual wording of 2d is "But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act." There has been nothing remotely vague about our defining "in act" - to be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. You are lying when you claim we have been vague. As such, 2d posits that it is not possible for a potential to be realized, unless it is by something already in a realized state. Your interpretation is baseless, and your objection has been refuted yet again. Your March 12 post does nothing to help you.
"Nor can you or anybody else come up with a counter example, that is, an example of a thing that was moved by a non-moving thing."
If you can't even grasp the meaning of "in act", "potency", "motion", and the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series, then there is absolutely no point in getting into this one - pure act, a thing's nature, etc. It would be like a young-earth creationist making the following argument: "If evolution was true, there wouldn't still be monkeys. There are still monkeys, ergo evolution is false." What good is going into genetics if they can't even grasp the concept of common descent? I would agree, though, that something made of the changeable matter and energy of the universe can't qualify as the first mover, since they can undergo change caused by other things. Quite telling, that one. Once you understand these things, and can tell me what the argument actually means, then we can discuss how the first mover does not violate the premises of the argument.
Point 2: "The premise of 4a leads to the conclusion of 4. The conclusion of 4 leads to the conclusion of 5. But the conclusion of 5 is the premise in 4a!"
The first three premises demonstrate an essentially ordered causal series, in which the agents of change are operating simultaneously. In doing so, 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 again: If there is an essentially ordered series, which Aquinas demonstrates, then it REQUIRES a first mover. You can only object to this if you deny the concept of an essentially ordered causal series.
Point 3: "The notation of the OP stops at U. Hines doesn't even attempt to make a logical link to God."
See [13] and [14]. Also as mentioned multiple times, the argument is aimed at Christian apologists, not obstinate hyper-skeptics.
For future reference, you should really stop lying and say we haven't addressed your arguments, when we have demonstrably done so at length.
"....an essentially ordered series is one where there is a relation of instrumental dependence, in which members in that series would not be able to do or to actualise anything apart from the causal series of earlier members (which, in the final analysis, would also be derived). A causal series of this nature would, for want of a better word, be 'rootless', in that it would have no metaphysical foundation upon which to become extant. ....Even if (say) the universe was eternal, and had no beginning, it certainly does not preclude the possibility of a first member, the existence of which is metaphysically necessary- not to mention metaphysically (as opposed to temporally) prior- for the existence of such a universe." - Scott Buchanan
Legion: "That is not even remotely what 2d posits. The actual wording of 2d is "But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act." There has been nothing remotely vague about our defining "in act" - to be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. "
So, this is what you call demolishing.
An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move. As support, I give you a) reality, and b) the steadfast refusal of apologists to provide an example of a motionless (existing) thing causing another motionless thing to move (despite repeating that they could, or have, etc.)
So, if what you say were true, the first premise fails because it is unsound. (Do you understand that much? Do you acknowledge that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument? Seriously, do you accept that? Because it seems like just don't.)
The interpretation that Stardusty gave was a) commonsensical, given the examples that Aquinas provided, and b) an attempt to make the premise somehow sound.
So, you haven't "demolished" anything. You've simply stipulated that your preferred interpretation of the words should prevail, at the cost of spiting yourself with an unsound premise.
Score none, apologists!
Legion: "There has been nothing remotely vague about our defining "in act" - to be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. " "
Then it appears you are too daft to understand how the term "in act" is equivocation. "In act" is entirely vague, as it means two things in the argument. (Hint: that's what equivocating means.)
In act can mean: to (actually) exist.
AND, in act can mean a thing in a state of motion.
So, In Act = two things: existing, and existing in a state.
That's equivocation, and it's the definition of vague. For further evidence, just see the vast confusion over the term in apologetics land, and the fact that the term has been abandoned (centuries and centuries ago) by those working in the physical sciences. Because it's hopelessly muddled. (Which means: vague).
So, this is what I meant when I've asked, over and over, for any of you to refer back to your supposed rebuttals. Because, whenever we revisit them, we see how hopelessly inadequate they are to the refutations previously offered.
And that's all they could be -- the responses could just be inadequate, for reasons that I have just repeated. But combine that with the repeated misrepresentations and dishonesty on display from the apologists here they become something more.
"....an essentially ordered series is one where there is a relation of instrumental dependence, in which members in that series would not be able to do or to actualise anything apart from the causal series of earlier members (which, in the final analysis, would also be derived). A causal series of this nature would, for want of a better word, be 'rootless', in that it would have no metaphysical foundation upon which to become extant. ....Even if (say) the universe was eternal, and had no beginning, it certainly does not preclude the possibility of a first member, the existence of which is metaphysically necessary- not to mention metaphysically (as opposed to temporally) prior- for the existence of such a universe." - Scott Buchanan
Chris: "That strikes me as a pretty clear definition."
That's nice:
Hey, Chris, now that you're back, why don't you respond to the question i asked before you left:
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
Legion: "Once you understand these things, and can tell me what the argument actually means, then we can discuss how the first mover does not violate the premises of the argument."
This has been one of the dumber refrains from apologists here, one that I haven't bothered to point out, but as it keeps on popping up I'll just say it: critics can't tell you what any particular bad argument means, because a bad argument doesn't mean anything.
Legion: "If you can't even grasp the meaning of "in act", "potency", "motion", and the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series, then there is absolutely no point in getting into this one - pure act, a thing's nature, etc."
There is a point in clarifying terms, and being precise. If terms defy attempts at clarification, then they shouldn't be used in arguments. This is pretty simple stuff.
Btw, motion has a modern definition that is more precise than the one used in the First Way. Swapping out the apologists suggestion of "change" for "motion" only makes the argument odder, and Aquinas's examples stranger.
Legion: "It would be like a young-earth creationist making the following argument: "If evolution was true, there wouldn't still be monkeys. There are still monkeys, ergo evolution is false." "
Nope.
The misunderstanding above can be easily fixed by pointing out that the term evolution (in this context) means descent from common ancestry. On the other hand, if one accepts that to be in act should be interpreted as to "be in an actualized state," this DOES NOT FIX the problems pointed out in the First Way -- the problems of the argument being sound, equivocation, circularity, and being ad hoc.
"Things are not themselves, without being, unless they are not, thus fire," is a bad argument. Declaring that by "Things" in the prior "argument" you should understand the word to mean everything at once, and nothing in particular, I have not made the argument any better.
>> "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move."
The argument doesn't try to sort out what kind of actual being can accomplish the task, it only states that it must be caused by an actual being.
>> "You've simply stipulated that your preferred interpretation of the words should prevail, at the cost of spiting yourself with an unsound premise."
Gee, speaking of simply stipulating...on what basis are you claiming the premise quoted below isn't true? I've not seen an example of it ever being shown to be false. Actual things are always involved.
"But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act."
Yes, because what SD claims to be the correct interpretation of 2d is blatantly incorrect.
Cal: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move"
And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever. Stop trying to turn the First Way into a science discussion. I've already covered this ridiculous "objection". Obviously Aquinas didn't believe anyone to be idiotic enough to try and twist his argument into saying that any existing thing can result in any effect.
Cal: "So, if what you say were true, the first premise fails because it is unsound. (Do you understand that much? Do you acknowledge that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument? Seriously, do you accept that? Because it seems like just don't.)"
Neither of you has yet to demonstrate an unsound premise. Neither of you is very good at this, so I'm curious why you do it.
Cal: "The interpretation that Stardusty gave was a) commonsensical, given the examples that Aquinas provided, and b) an attempt to make the premise somehow sound."
No, it was an embarrassing misunderstanding that has provided much comedic effect for over a thousand posts now. That you cheer his ignorance on is icing on the cake.
Cal: "In act can mean: to (actually) exist. AND, in act can mean a thing in a state of motion."
Wow.
Motion in the argument is "the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality". So, something that is not potential but exists, is in act. Something that could exist but does not, is potential. How in the world is such a simple concept so difficult to understand?
Cal: "the fact that the term has been abandoned (centuries and centuries ago) by those working in the physical sciences."
Holy hell, the First Way is not a scientific argument, nor is it a pseudo-scientific argument. This is hilariously unbelievable. Scientism is such a brain rot.
Cal: "So, this is what I meant when I've asked, over and over, for any of you to refer back to your supposed rebuttals. Because, whenever we revisit them, we see how hopelessly inadequate they are to the refutations previously offered."
You guys can't even understand the argument, let alone defend your pathetic attempts at refuting it. I've wiped my behind with your little refutations, and you still think they smell like flowers.
Cal: " critics can't tell you what any particular bad argument means, because a bad argument doesn't mean anything. Capiche?"
Critics have to understand the argument before they can criticize it.
Capiche?
Cal: "Btw, motion has a modern definition that is more precise than the one used in the First Way."
That's because Aquinas is not talking about motion in the modern sense. Good golly gee whiz.
Cal: "The misunderstanding above can be easily fixed by pointing out that the term evolution (in this context) means descent from common ancestry."
I said what would be the point of going into genetics to prove evolution if they could not grasp the concept of common descent. So, to use what I actually wrote, your response to someone that couldn't grasp the concept of common descent, is to tell them that evolution means common descent?
Cal: "Things are not themselves, without being, unless they are not, thus fire," is a bad argument. Declaring that by "Things" in the prior "argument" you should understand the word to mean everything at once, and nothing in particular, I have not made the argument any better."
Even with a copy of the First Way open, I can't even begin to get where you could even jokingly twist this gibberish out of it.
Me: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move" Legion: "And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever."
False.
From this thread: Stardusty: "actual motion is caused by something in actual motion" Stevek: No. Think of a train. The cars are not the cause of the motion, the engine is.
Stardusty:"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality (actual motion is caused by something in actual motion, which is plainly true in our common experience. Aquinas is not saying something stupid here, he is stating the obvious in an attempt to make a thorough argument)” bmiller: "No, this is only saying that something actually existing (not something potentially existing or nothing at all) has to be responsible for the change."
And hey, here's you, saying what you just claimed no one EVER said. Does that make you a liar? I suppose it does.
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot." Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
Wow indeed.
Why such contortions from the apologists here?
Oh, oh, I know!
Because when you equivocate (a fancy word for using weasel words), and your cherished argument is examined with some precision and revealed to be a mess, you realize that the argument won't hold up.
So you'll insist on vague words and muddled concepts, you'll find yourself denying the obvious and backtracking, because your greatest desire is to continue the charade that you are somehow in possession of valuable knowledge.
You really don't understand much of anything, do you?
The First Way argument is not - I repeat, is not - a scientific argument. It is not describing mechanical means of the relationship between cause and effect. What it IS, is a description of the concept of causality in an essentially ordered series, as well as an explanation of the difference between act and potency - which themselves are general concepts and not scientific terms, so don't even descend into that nonsense again.
When Aristotle and Aquinas speak of act and potency, they are saying that only something in act can cause change - as opposed to a potential thing, which does not [yet] exist. The point of doing this is NOT as an explanation of HOW something causes change, it is an explanation of how an essentially ordered causal series functions. So I repeat yet again - NO ONE is saying that the mere existence of a thing enables it to cause any effect. What we are saying is that causal power depends upon being in act instead of potential, because the whole point of the argument is how the causal series functions - which is what leads to the first mover.
You and SD are so hung up on trying to force the First Way into being a scientific description that you haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the argument. And as usual, when the delusion of intellectual superiority is demolished, the atheist retreats into accusations of lying, despite the only lying occurring being from the atheists.
"You and SD are so hung up on trying to force the First Way into being a scientific description that you haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the argument."
I cannot wait for them to come back and insist, in true ironic self-refuting style, that scientific descriptions are the only real and meaningful descriptions. Science!
Legion: "The First Way argument is not - I repeat, is not - a scientific argument."
WTF is a "scientific" argument? Arguments are just arguments. Do you mean that the real things that Aquinas mentions -- fire, and rods -- aren't meant to be real things that can be observed? If so, you seem to know better than Aquinas, who felt it appropriate to include these real things in his argument.
Legion: "It is not describing mechanical means of the relationship between cause and effect."
Agreed. But it does describe the relationship -- as in moving things cause things not moving to move, and hot things cause cold things to heat up, and moving hands cause rods to move. Agreed on no mechanical means, but cause and effect are actually described though the examples that Aquinas chose to use.
Legion? "What it IS, is a description of the concept of causality..."
A description of the concept of causality? Do you even hear the muddled weasel words you use? We describe real things. We define concepts. You're trying to have it both ways -- to make claims ABOUT reality while apparently forbidding anyone to test those claims IN reality. This isn't argument -- it's a hissy fit, thrown by a toddler.
Legion: "... in an essentially ordered series, as well as an explanation of the difference between act and potency - which themselves are general concepts and not scientific terms, so don't even descend into that nonsense again."
Agreed that act and potency are not scientific terms. But that doesn't mean that act and potency are words, and words have to mean something. So far, no one has been able to explain what these words mean in such a way as to avoid the problems we discover when we use clearer terms in the argument. When clarification disrupts an argument, you can be sure the argument rests on sand.
Legion: "When Aristotle and Aquinas speak of act and potency, they are saying that only something in act can cause change - as opposed to a potential thing, which does not [yet] exist."
As Stardusty has pointed out, replacing this meaning into the argument renders it into garbage. Here, I'll paste it for you so you can see it again:
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.
It's almost as if you haven't read and comprehended any of our prior posts, going over this in the same way, over and over and over.
Is this what you still call "demolishing?" Because I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Legion: "And as usual, when the delusion of intellectual superiority is demolished, the atheist retreats into accusations of lying, despite the only lying occurring being from the atheists."
Yeah, as if the skeptics here are the liars. Look at you, just a few comments earlier:
Me: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move" Legion: "And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever."
Earlier, FROM THIS SAME THREAD: Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot." Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
No one has claimed otherwise. Ever. Oh, except for you, and the other apologists here. Also, black is white, apparently, and down is up.
Apologetics is a kind of sickness. You guys need help.
Cal: "But it does describe the relationship -- as in moving things cause things not moving to move, and hot things cause cold things to heat up, and moving hands cause rods to move."
No. No, no no. Aquinas is describing an essentially ordered causal series. In such a series, a potential is brought into actuality (this transition is called "motion" in the argument) by something else. If that agent of change is also a potential state being realized, then its ability to cause change is entirely derived from whatever changed it, and so on. Those are the concepts. You and SD come running and crying and trying to inject the mechanical means by which these concepts operate, but those means are utterly irrelevant to the argument. The examples Aquinas gives illustrate the concepts - wood is potentially burning, but will not do so unless acted upon by something else, which is fire. A staff (agent of change) moves a rock (change), but its ability to change the rock is entirely derived from the hand moving the staff (functional first mover in the series).
Those are the points Aquinas and Aristotle were making. The mechanical means by which something in act causes change are as relevant to the argument as my knowledge of biochemistry is required to feel happiness - not at all.
Cal: "A description of the concept of causality? Do you even hear the muddled weasel words you use?"
The only possible way you could make this objection in good faith would be if you don't know what a concept is. Google its definition, maybe read up on some examples, then come back to me. If you know what a concept is, then you are lying when you make this accusation. There is nothing vague about discussing the concept of causality. Children can do it, as I proved with my 10 year old daughter. Why can't you?
Cal: "You're trying to have it both ways -- to make claims ABOUT reality while apparently forbidding anyone to test those claims IN reality."
I wouldn't mind you and SD attempting to test the claim if you were actually, you know, testing the claim. Neither of you could successfully paraphrase the argument to me right now, so how can you test anything about it?
Cal: "As Stardusty has pointed out, replacing this meaning into the argument renders it into garbage. Here, I'll paste it for you so you can see it again"
'Kay.
"But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in existence.[10]"
No problem here. A thing is able to change something else only if it is actualized and not a potential.
"c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence."
No problem here. Motion in the argument is the realization of a potential state, so this is essentially correct. The realization of a potential state brings that state into 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."
Quite right. It is not possible for a potential state to be realized unless that change is caused by something that itself is not potential. No problem here.
"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."
Quite right. A match, for example, cannot set fire to wood unless the match is itself already in an actualized state of burning. The wood can potentially burn, but will not unless acted upon by something else. No problem here.
"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."
Quite right. A flame cannot both exist and potentially exist. No problem here.
"i. That, in effect, which is existent burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold."
Quite right. No problem here.
So what was the problem with "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?
Cal: "It's almost as if you haven't read and comprehended any of our prior posts, going over this in the same way, over and over and over."
You got your pronouns backward. Flip them around to the correct position, and you would realize how badly your arguments have been demolished.
Cal: "No one has claimed otherwise. Ever. Oh, except for you, and the other apologists here. Also, black is white, apparently, and down is up."
I have already addressed this in my last round of replies to you. I'll copy/paste it here:
Legion: "So I repeat yet again - NO ONE is saying that the mere existence of a thing enables it to cause any effect. What we are saying is that causal power depends upon being in act instead of potential, because the whole point of the argument is how the causal series functions - which is what leads to the first mover."
I was not denying what we wrote - I was telling you WHY we wrote what we wrote, and the point we were making in writing it, in response to you and SD's ridiculous attempts to focus on the mechanical method of causal power, rather than the concepts actually being addressed. Attempting to take what we said out of context is deceitful. You are lying.
Scientism is a mental disorder apparently, but it does not excuse your continued lying. Fortunately you didn't delete your posts, so your lie is clearly displayed.
Legion: "Attempting to take what we said out of context is deceitful. You are lying."
In order for something to be taken out of context, the meaning would change if the surrounding context were incorporated. That is what it means to take something out of context.
How is it that I have taken what you said out of context?
Or are you going to run away from this request, like grod did when I requested the same from him?
----
Here's what I've discovered: whenever I take an apologists words, and show them the inconsistency, they refuse do accept the fact, or, sometimes, they see it, and then they accuse me of taking their words out of context.
Not EVER has an apologist shown how my exposing their inconsistency is actually an example of taking them out of context.
Cal: "How is it that I have taken what you said out of context?"
You know, I'm going to be charitable now that I've read over our last few exchanges a few times. Rather than accusing you of intentional deceit, which after this much time I feel fully justified in suspecting, I'm just going to assume that you simply have no idea what you're talking about. So for now, I will provisionally retract the contextual accusation.
My quote:
[FW] "The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized"
and others like it are because the argument is dealing with describing an essentially ordered causal series, and not explaining the mechanical method by which a cause brings about an effect. The reason we keep saying things like [FW] is not because we or Aristotle or Aquinas believe that existence is sufficient to bring about any effect, or that the First Way argues for this, but because you two are continuously failing to grasp what the argument is saying and keep trying to argue against the First Strawman (the relevant premise of the First Strawman is SD's interpretation of 2d, "Only a moving thing causes a non-moving thing to move"). We are saying [FW] IN RESPONSE to your errors, because 2d of the First Strawman is not even remotely what 2d of the First Way is saying. When we say things like [FW], we are trying to get you to understand what 2d is saying, so you can grasp the rest of the argument.
But you don't get that. Instead, you take [FW] and then try to claim that we are objecting to SD's First Strawman 2d on its terms - as in, we are attempting to explain what causes something not moving around to move around via [FW]. There's a big difference between us trying to explain what a certain premise of the argument is and is not saying, and us simply making a claim that you want to refute with:
[FS] "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move".
NO ONE has made the argument that mere existence is sufficient for a cause to simply result in any random effect, or that existence is a property that can generate movement. Again, you are hung up on the mechanical method by which a cause brings about an effect. You might conceivably have a point with [FS] and then calling me a liar for denying we claimed otherwise, if the argument was dealing with mechanical methods of a cause resulting in an effect. But the argument is NOT dealing with those. The examples of fire and the staff do indeed have a mechanical component as a real-life example, but that is not the point of the argument at all.
You object to the First Way regarding mechanical operation, and we respond with [FW] from two angles - one, the First Way is not dealing with mechanical operation, it is dealing with act, potency, and motion as part of an essentially ordered series - and with this being the case, 2d can be accurately summarized as [FW] and the First Way's examples demonstrate it to be so. And two, no one makes the claim that existence is a sufficient mechanical cause for an effect - not only because everyone knows that, but also because the argument isn't even talking about that in the first place. So when we say things like [FW], we are not talking about what you are talking about with [FS]. [FW] is not an attempt to counter [FS] or 2d of the First Strawman - [FW] is us waving our arms and hollering that the argument is over here where we are at, not over there in the fields of straw where you guys are at.
stevek: "The remedy is to accept the multitude of corrections being offered and deal with THAT argument. Since you cannot be bothered with that task, we cannot be bothered to help you any more than we already have."
" If you think that the First Way is in need of many corrections then you agree with Stardusty and me that the arguments conclusions are easily refuted by dint of the argument being circular, unsound, equivocating and being ad hoc. I'm not sure how this can be corrected,"
Of course, the words of Aquinas cannot be corrected in the sense that anybody can change what he wrote.
Aquinas wrote a great many errors. Those errors will always remain the errors of Aquinas because we cannot go back to medieval times to give Aquinas a chance to correct his many mistakes.
But, apologists have cleaned up some of his more glaring errors and come out with modified versions, such as the Kalam.
SteveK wants it every which way. He wants to claim Aquinas was correct, and that I am wrong in pointing out the errors of Aquinas, and that modifications to Aquinas have been made, and that folks like me should concentrate on those modified versions, and just stop pointing out how wrong Aquinas was because Aquinas was completely correct and that is why he had to be modified so we could ignore all his correct errors and just concentrate on the modified versions that no longer have his original errors that were in his works that were all completely correct in the first place!
You are a real idiot for not understanding this in over 800 posts!
SD Point 1: "2d of the OP posits that only a moving thing can cause a non-moving thing to move."
" That is not even remotely what 2d posits. " Of course it does, and the example that follows explains this to you clearly. I am sorry you did not read the plain descriptive language with any depth of understanding.
" "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. You are lying when you claim we have been vague." Not only is that vague it is circular and meaningless. "act=actualized state" "act=state of being actualized" "act=state of act"
You are speaking in gibberish.
"Nor can you or anybody else come up with a counter example, that is, an example of a thing that was moved by a non-moving thing."
" If you can't even grasp the meaning of "in act", "potency"," Those are meaningless terms from antiquity that have no relevance to any modern serious discussion of causality.
" and the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series," Again, those ancient notions are irrelevant to any serious modern discussion of causality.
"we can discuss how the first mover does not violate the premises of the argument." I have shown clearly how Aquinas does contradict himself. You have failed to read with understanding the plain text of 2d and the example that explains it.
Point 2: "The premise of 4a leads to the conclusion of 4. The conclusion of 4 leads to the conclusion of 5. But the conclusion of 5 is the premise in 4a!"
" The first three premises demonstrate an essentially ordered causal series," Irellavant. 4a introduces U as the reason for ~I. Then 5 uses ~I as the reason for U. If you do not see the blatant circularity you have a vision problem.
" A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter." ??? So what?
" So again: If there is an essentially ordered series, which Aquinas demonstrates, then it REQUIRES a first mover." Not if "I" is the case. If "I" is the case then "~U" is the case.
Aquinas wrote U -> ~I ~I -> U
One could just as well write I -> ~U ~U -> I
Justification: An infinitely ordered series REQUIRES the absence of a first mover.
In truth both arguments are circular and have no rational merit. Neither and infinite regress nor a first mover can be shown by logic to be superior to the other. Thus the riddle of the origin of existence remains unsolved.
" You can only object to this if you deny the concept of an essentially ordered causal series." Ok, done.
Point 3: "The notation of the OP stops at U. Hines doesn't even attempt to make a logical link to God."
" See [13] and [14]. Also as mentioned multiple times, the argument is aimed at Christian apologists, not obstinate hyper-skeptics."
How absurd. If a particular small audience agrees then the argument is sound. Really? That is the best you can do?
Clearly, there is no logical connection to get from U to G, or from G to E. This Aquinas fails at this critical step. Haines obviously recognizes this logical failure so he stopped at U.
" For future reference, you should really stop lying and say we haven't addressed your arguments, " You have not addressed my arguments in any meaningful way. Your attempt at point 3 was particularly vapid. Your attempt at point 1 fails to provide any meaningful definition of "act" and fails to account for the explanation Aquinas provides right in the argument. Your attempt at point 2 shows how you do not understand circularity.
>> "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move."
" The argument doesn't try to sort out what kind of actual being can accomplish the task, it only states that it must be caused by an actual being."
Then the First way becomes meaningless babble. If any old sort of act can reduce any old sort of potential to any old sort of act then there is no rational merit to the argument.
Aquinas becomes "things make things do things".
Aquinas becomes childish slobbering in your meaning of "act".
Cal: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move"
" And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever. " Uhm, yes, and frequently. You did not say this, rather, you only offer a circular "definition" of "act=actualized state", which is meaningless for slightly different reasons
"Stop trying to turn the First Way into a science discussion. " OMG! Really? Well, yes, I suppose I see your point. If one applies science to the First Way it becomes absurd nonsense immediately, so you would wish to avoid that, I suppose.
However, an argument from motion is necessarily a physics argument, and physics is a part of science, so the First Way is necessarily scientifically wrong.
" The First Way argument is not - I repeat, is not - a scientific argument. "
At last we agree, at least in the sense of a valid scientific argument. Any argument from motion would have to be a valid scientific argument to be of any merit, but the First Way isn't, so it isn't.
" So what was the problem with "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?"
The problem is you are equivocating.
Mere existence renders the first way as meaningless babble.
To make the First Way even have meaningful sentences you must apply specificity to the kind of existence, what class of existence is actually existing.
To apply that specificity one then gets that only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to move to being hot.
Mere existence is not sufficient. Having any old state is not sufficient. Only a particular sort of state will do.
Thus, only a moving thing causes an apparently non-moving thing to move.
SD: "Of course it does, and the example that follows explains this to you clearly."
No it doesn't, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The examples obviously demonstrate the causal relationship in an essentially ordered series - the mechanical method of casual transference is irrelevant. Whether the guy holding the staff moved it with his hand or moved it with a robot or moved it with cosmic mind powers, the example still holds true in that the staff's ability to move the rock is not derived from itself, but from change being acted upon it by the first mover of the series. The point is demonstrating the relationship between act, potency, and motion (change) within an essentially ordered series.
And rather than keep typing these mega posts, I'm not moving on until you get what the point of 2d is. Once you get that, I'll address the rest of your nonsense. In the context of the First Way argument - you know, what we're talking about -
What is an essentially ordered series? What does it mean to be "in act"? What does it mean to be "potential"? What does "motion" mean?
Dusty, I'm not asking you to accept a corrected *argument*. I'm asking you to accept our corrections to your ongoing mistakes so we can discuss the actual argument (the original). You never do that. You keep refuting strawman after strawman after strawman.
>> "Then the First way becomes meaningless babble. If any old sort of act can reduce any old sort of potential to any old sort of act then there is no rational merit to the argument."
Huh?? My comment was intended to point out that the argument doesn't examine all the various *particular* kinds of things that can (or cannot) produce a *particular* kind of change. Can a ping-pong ball cause a boulder to move? The argument doesn't examine this. The argument, however, DOES examine/discuss different kinds of things at a higher level, as anyone who can read will know.
Generally speaking, the argument BEGINS with a certain kind of actual thing that we observe (a thing that can change) and ENDS with the conclusion that there MUST be another kind of thing (one that cannot change).
>> "Aquinas becomes "things make things do things". Aquinas becomes childish slobbering in your meaning of "act"."
To your child-like mind, I suppose it does do that.
>> "Mere existence is not sufficient. Having any old state is not sufficient. Only a particular sort of state will do."
True, and the argument proves this out. The argument says, in general, not any old thing can cause the change we observe. You incorrectly think the argument drills down to a level that it clearly does not do. We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring our corrections. You're in love with the strawman you've created that you can bear the thought of getting rid of it.
SD: "Of course it does, and the example that follows explains this to you clearly."
" No it doesn't, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The examples obviously demonstrate the causal relationship in an essentially ordered series " Right, the motion of the causal object is essential to the motion of the effected object. In truth they affect each other in a mutual cause and effect temporal process, but I am speaking in your medieval vernacular just for the sake of discussion.
"- the mechanical method of casual transference is irrelevant." OK, all change is the result of a physical motion, and only a moving object can impart motion on a stationary object, the exact mechanical linkage can vary.
" Whether the guy holding the staff moved it with his hand or moved it with a robot"... ... motion was caused by a moving object, indeed.
" or moved it with cosmic mind powers," Pure woo.
" the example still holds true in that the staff's ability to move the rock is not derived from itself," Indeed, only a moving hand can move the staff. Once the staff is moving then it can move the rock. Only a moving thing causes motion, you are correct.
" but from change being acted upon it by the first mover of the series." The series is arbitrary and in fact the notion of a first mover is irrational and is never observed.
The hand is not the start of the motion. The heart is beating to pump the blood to allow the muscles to contract. Food must move into the digestive system for the heart to beat. The food must be moved to the mouth. The plants must move up out of the ground to become food. The sunlight must move to the Earth to grow the plants.
And on and on and on to infinity. I -> ~U
An infinetly ordered series REQUIRES the absence of a first mover.
"The point is demonstrating the relationship between act, potency, and motion (change) within an essentially ordered series." Ancient language employed in medieval times with no modern usefulness in any serious discussion of causality. I only employ that vernacular as a father speaks in the vocabulary of a babbling child for the sake of some rudimentary communication.
" And rather than keep typing these mega posts, I'm not moving on until you get what the point of 2d is. " Ok, I get 2d, so you can move on.
" What is an essentially ordered series?" A nonsense term in modern discussions of causality. It is an ancient notion from pre-science that makes some attempt ant understanding causality.
" What does it mean to be "in act"?" Act is a circular term with no argumentative value. A thing is in act when it is in a state of actuality, which is a babble definition. Because it is such a generalized term it leads to pointless sentences when applied in the First Way. Act only takes on meaning by the example Aquinas provides, which is that of specificity. "Act=actually a particular sort of state, as opposed to potentially in that particular sort of state" This deffinition is provided in the example Aquinas provides and makes sense from our ordinary level of observation. An actually hot thing makes a potentially hot thing actually hot.
Heat is motion. You do know that, don't you? Clearly Aquinas did not mean to say that any old thing can make any old thing do any old thing. Only a moving thing can make a stationary thing move.
" What does it mean to be "potential"?" Nothing in any modern discussion of causality. Again, it is ancient terminology to be used only when lowering one's self to that level for the sake of discussion. At the level of ordinary human perception there is an idea that certain objects are capable of doing certain things but not capable of doing other things, and so the notion of "potential" is assigned to objects for what they are perceived to be able to become.
" What does "motion" mean?" Motion is relative. But at our ordinary level of perception we can define a reference coordinate system and detect that objects move from on position to another position. This is a very useful approximation of the true nature of things.
Sometimes motion is said to mean change. But all change of all sorts requires motion.
The mirror metaphor below parallels the argument reasonably well in that it argues that there MUST exist TWO kinds of things in order to explain what is observed. ....
You observe a mirror with an image of a grizzly bear in the mirror. Knowing that images in mirrors are caused by some other thing, you follow the reflection only to find another mirror in which the bear is reflected yet again. You continue along a series of mirrors, finding an image of a bear at every step.
You wonder if an infinite series of mirrors can explain the observed image of a bear. You correctly conclude that it cannot. Why? Because mirrors do not produce images by themselves. ALL images in mirrors are caused by some other thing. An infinite series of mirrors cannot produce an image a bear. Since a bear is observed, a bear MUST exist.
According to you, an essentially ordered series is "A nonsense term in modern discussions of causality. It is an ancient notion from pre-science that makes some attempt ant understanding causality."
So, you clearly have no idea what an essentially ordered series is.
According to you, act is "a circular term with no argumentative value". You say that " A thing is in act when it is in a state of actuality, which is a babble definition". You say that "Because it is such a generalized term it leads to pointless sentences when applied in the First Way."
So, you clearly have no idea what "in act" means, which means that you have no idea how to critique the argument since knowing what "in act" means is essential to understanding the argument. We are not discussing the mechanical methods by which a cause brings about an effect - we are discussing causes and effects, and why (not how) a cause is able to generate an effect.
According to you, potential is "Nothing in any modern discussion of causality", which of course translates to "nothing in any scientific discussion of causality". Okay, no one cares. I think you might at least understand what potential means, though, so that's one out of three so far.
For motion, you describe local motion and then get to the relevant part: "Sometimes motion is said to mean change. But all change of all sorts requires motion." You get it, then blow it with yet another retreat into mechanical description. That's like saying if every example of something that meets the definition of life (dog, tree, bacteria) is carbon-based, then the definition of life REQUIRES it to be carbon-based, which is of course not true. Whether or not examples share a trait, that does not mean that the trait DEFINES what the argument is about.
So, you have no idea what an essentially ordered causal series is. You have no idea what "in act" is. You dismiss "potential" as not useful but at least know what it means, I think. And you could conceivably understand what "motion" in the argument is (change of any kind), but you don't want to focus on the concept but rather the mechanical method of change, which is not the point of the argument. It's quite reasonable to conclude, then, that you don't have a clue what 2d is saying.
But at least we aren't starting from zero. Now then, to update the questions:
What is an essentially ordered causal series? What does "in act" mean? Why does the argument use "potential" as an important concept to understand? What is the argument getting at when discussing motion (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?
"I'm asking you to accept our corrections to your ongoing mistakes so we can discuss the actual argument (the original). You never do that." Again and again I have referenced the OP, used the text from Haines, and used the notation of Haines.
>> "Then the First way becomes meaningless babble. If any old sort of act can reduce any old sort of potential to any old sort of act then there is no rational merit to the argument."
" Huh?? My comment was intended to point out that the argument doesn't examine all the various *particular* kinds of things that can (or cannot) produce a *particular* kind of change. " Then 2d becomes a tautology. *Nothing causes motion except things that can cause motion." You again turn Aquinas into babble.
Aquinas actually does a fairly good job making some ordinary observations up to 2d. It is all quite reasonable, and as Aquinas cites at the outset, based on our senses. The explanation of 2d is reasonable, that a hot thing causes something else to get hot, or more generally, a moving thing causes something else to move. That's what we all observe every day.
The problem is that it leads to self contradiction later in his argument.
"Can a ping-pong ball cause a boulder to move?" Yes, of course.
" The argument doesn't examine this. " Sure it does, motion causes motion. Why would a ping pong ball and a boulder be an exception?
"The argument, however, DOES examine/discuss different kinds of things at a higher level, as anyone who can read will know." This is statement so vague as to be useless.
" Generally speaking, the argument BEGINS with a certain kind of actual thing that we observe (a thing that can change) and ENDS with the conclusion that there MUST be another kind of thing (one that cannot change)." Invalidly argued so the assertion of MUST has no actual value.
>> "Aquinas becomes "things make things do things". Aquinas becomes childish slobbering in your meaning of "act"."
" To your child-like mind, I suppose it does do that." That is what the theists here do to Aquinas by denying the obvious principle that only a hot thing makes something hot, only a moving thing makes something move. Aquinas states it clearly and it makes sense at our ordinary level of perception.
>> "Mere existence is not sufficient. Having any old state is not sufficient. Only a particular sort of state will do."
" True, and the argument proves this out. "
I am glad you disagree with the many times various theists have contradicted your above point.
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot." Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
Stardusty: "actual motion is caused by something in actual motion" Stevek: No. Think of a train. The cars are not the cause of the motion, the engine is.
Stardusty:"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality (actual motion is caused by something in actual motion, which is plainly true in our common experience. Aquinas is not saying something stupid here, he is stating the obvious in an attempt to make a thorough argument)” bmiller: "No, this is only saying that something actually existing (not something potentially existing or nothing at all) has to be responsible for the change."
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot." Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
SP an essentially ordered series is "A nonsense term in modern discussions of causality. It is an ancient notion from pre-science that makes some attempt ant understanding causality.
" So, you clearly have no idea what an essentially ordered series is." Actually, I explained it correctly. You provide no viable alternative.
SP act is "a circular term with no argumentative value". You say that " A thing is in act when it is in a state of actuality, which is a babble definition".
" So, you clearly have no idea what "in act" means," Again, my description of the term matches your past usage of it, and you offer no viable alternative.
SP potential is "Nothing in any modern discussion of causality", which of course translates to "nothing in any scientific discussion of causality".
"Okay, no one cares. " That's one of your many problems with a lack of capacity to have a meaningful discussion on the subject of causality.
" For motion, you describe local motion and then get to the relevant part: "Sometimes motion is said to mean change. But all change of all sorts requires motion." You get it, then blow it with yet another retreat into mechanical description." Motion is mechanical, and since change is motion, change is mechanical.
" So, you have no idea what an essentially ordered causal series is. " It is an ancient idea that has no place in modern discussions of causality.
"You have no idea what "in act" is." It is a babble term you are unable to define.
" You dismiss "potential" as not useful but at least know what it means," I know what all these terms mean in the sense that a modern person understands the superstitions of primitive people.
" What is an essentially ordered causal series? What does "in act" mean? Why does the argument use "potential" as an important concept to understand? What is the argument getting at when discussing motion (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?"
Asked and answered on multiple posts, several times just recently, the above for example. If you have some viable alternative definitions by all means present them.
>> "Nothing causes motion except things that can cause motion."
Not a tautology *facepalm*
>> "Sure it does, motion causes motion."
You mean, just like reflections of bears in mirrors create reflections of bears in mirrors?
>> "I am glad you disagree with the many times various theists have contradicted your above point."
*sigh*. There is no disagreement or contradiction. All the examples you quoted from me and the other are within the context of you repeating the error that one of the premises is motion causes motion. It doesn't say that.
Legion: "What is an essentially ordered causal series? What does "in act" mean? Why does the argument use "potential" as an important concept to understand? What is the argument getting at when discussing motion (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?"
Hey, while you're at it perfessor, why don't you continue your tutorial with this topic as well:
What is phlogiston? Regarding phlogiston, what does "essence, as opposed to a particle" mean? Why does the argument for phlogiston concern itself with "the terra pinguis" as an important concept to understand? What is the argument for phlogiston getting at when discussing how it is a substance that can't be transported (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?
There's so much ground to cover, so much knowledge for you to convey!
@Stardusty, Is there anything more tragicomic than someone who's understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic? And how are so slow on the uptake that they grab ahold of the podium and try to begin to instruct.
SP: "Actually, I explained it correctly. You provide no viable alternative."
No, you embarrassed yourself. Try again. I and others have provided the definition and examples, for example March 23 at 4:00 p.m.
SP: "Again, my description of the term matches your past usage of it, and you offer no viable alternative."
No, your description of the term is a humiliation to yourself. Try again. We have defined it over and over, so even you should be able to figure it out.
SP: "That's one of your many problems with a lack of capacity to have a meaningful discussion on the subject of causality."
Science/scientific is not synonymous with meaning/meaningful. Useless objection. If you want to assert that science is the only meaningful method of describing something, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I look forward to your demonstration.
SP: "Motion is mechanical, and since change is motion, change is mechanical."
The method of causal power is subordinate to the concept of causal power in this argument - a chain link has pulling power not simply because of molecular bonding or high tensile strength or because it is a closed loop that prevents parting, but because the link is being pulled by some sort of power - a motor, a human, whatever the case may be. It doesn't matter if the chain link is literally unbreakable, it will pull nothing unless it derives pulling power from the link behind it, and so on all the way to the source of the power - the function first mover of the series (though not the literal first mover that Aquinas and Aristotle are demonstrating). You're wanting to discuss the mechanical properties of the chain, while we are trying to point out that regardless of the properties of the chain, its ability to cause anything - in this case, to pull - is derived from something else. That is an essentially ordered series. No one ever saw a chain pulling anything without something pulling the other end.
SP: "It [act] is a babble term you are unable to define."
I've defined it probably dozens of times. The problem isn't my lack of defining, but your lack of understanding.
So, we've again determined that you have no idea what an essentially ordered causal series is. You have no idea what "in act" means, despite us telling you scores of times. You are still hung up on the mechanical means of cause/effect, which is not the point of the argument. And yet you claim to understand the argument and to have refuted it. That is nonsense.
I'm not moving on until you can get these right. You can admit your ignorance and decline to get them right, which is also fine by me, but I'm tired of dealing with nonsense posts that don't even address the argument. Some refined questions, then.
What is an example of an essentially ordered causal series?
Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?
What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?
Phlogiston theory is a superceded "scientific" theory that attempted to explain why things burn, based upon limited means of study. Your attempt at wit here ironically reinforces one of our core refutations of your objections - namely, that you and SD are desperately trying to force the First Way into a pseudo-scientific argument, which it is not and was never intended to be. The fact that you throw a pseudo-scientific idea at me, as if it makes some sort of point about the First Way, is hilariously illustrative of your continued error.
Cal: "Is there anything more tragicomic than someone who's understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic?"
Rarely has one post been so ironic in so many ways. Indeed, there is not anything more "tragicomic" than someone whose understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic. On this we agree.
You're welcome to also attempt to answer the questions. Prove that understanding!
What is an example of an essentially ordered causal series?
Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?
What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?
I think your example of a match is a good one. An unlit match has the potential to start wood on fire but not actually. Once struck, that potential is "in act" and so it can actually start the wood on fire. I'm sure it wasn't difficult for your daughter to understand.
Likewise SteveK's example of mirrors reflecting off each other is a good analogy to what an essentially ordered causal series is.
Legion: “Phlogiston theory is a superceded "scientific" theory that attempted to explain why things burn, based upon limited means of study.”
Yes. In that way, it’s very, very similar to the First Way.
Legion: “Your attempt at wit here ironically reinforces one of our core refutations of your objections - namely, that you and SD are desperately trying to force the First Way into a pseudo-scientific argument, which it is not and was never intended to be.”
What kind of an argument has unsound premises?
What kind of an argument contradicts itself?
What kind of an argument uses circular reasoning?
What kind of argument is ad hoc?
If the First Way is intended to be all these things, then it succeeds at being that kind of argument.
Your attempt to elicit the imagined boogeyman of “scientism” appears to be nothing more than a ploy to exempt your silly defense of the First Way from the requirement of any argument.
The First Way stands — and fails — on the objective standard by which all arguments are evaluated. You don’t get a free pass by trying to change the rules of argument based on the age of your argument. That would just be silly.
Legion: “Rarely has one post been so ironic in so many ways. Indeed, there is not anything more "tragicomic" than someone whose understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic. On this we agree.”
We are all ignorant of most things. The trick to possessing knowledge isn’t just demanding that others come to learn whatever you believe, but demonstrating the usefulness of what you know to be correct. Everything else is vanity.
And vanity is the best explanation for your silly need to get others to pay attention to the First Way, and to justify the amount of time you’ve already wasted trying to make sense of its obvious deficiencies. We should care about the First Way because, apparently, you find it important. Sorry, but pretending that you possess valuable knowledge is not something that’s worth our time. Get over yourself.
Legion: “You're welcome to also attempt to answer the questions. Prove that understanding! / What is an example of an essentially ordered causal series?”
You seem to think that you your arbitrary preferences for definitions is what is at issue in a discussion; it never is.
Discussions are about mutually agreed definitions, and applying those definitions consistently, and using the rules of logic, and testing the soundness of premises.
For that reason, “in act,” or an “essentially ordered series” can be whatever you define them to be. And so we test those definitions according to how these matters are analyzed — by the rules of argument.
I couldn’t care less what you think “in act” means. Once again, get over yourself.
I do care about consistency, and I hate hypocrisy, and sanctimony, and I am compelled to point these things out. So, if you want to persuade others, do this:
- Define your terms clearly. - Form them into an argument that conforms to the rules of argument. - Accept the result stipulated by your definitions and the rules of argument.
So far, all you have shown is that you are so vain you can’t grasp or employ this simple process to justify the time you’ve apparently frittered away trying to make sense of the First Way.
This is the problem with apologists: they can't absorb information that challenges their preconceived beliefs, or would undermine the notion that they are in possession of valuable knowledge:
Legion: "Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?"
Legion (from March 23 at4:07): ""in act" = actualized/existing/etc?"
Stardusty explaining what this definition does to the argument (pasted yet again. sigh): "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.
So, to answer your questions -- Legion: "Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?" -- I think it means that you are incapable of the discipline it takes to analyze arguments.
Cal: "Yes. In that way, it’s very, very similar to the First Way."
That's amazing, considering the First Way was never intended to be a science-type argument.
Cal: "Your attempt to elicit the imagined boogeyman of “scientism” appears to be nothing more than a ploy to exempt your silly defense of the First Way from the requirement of any argument."
What is a valid form of discussing reality other than scientific discoveries?
Cal: "And vanity is the best explanation for your silly need to get others to pay attention to the First Way"
So now my responding to you and SD is vanity and a silly need? Interesting, I thought the way this worked was a back-and-forth exchange. You apparently want to lecture without me responding. Write your own blog then, and censor me from the comments if you don't want your lack of understanding about the First Way to be pointed out to you over there, too.
Cal: "and to justify the amount of time you’ve already wasted trying to make sense of its obvious deficiencies."
We have decisively demonstrated that you and SD have no idea what the First Way is saying. Your assertion here is as meaningful as a blind man talking about how obviously ugly a painting was.
Cal: "We should care about the First Way because, apparently, you find it important."
I couldn't care less if you care about the First Way, but I'm also under no obligation to withhold responses when I see you and SD engaged in the First Strawman.
Cal: "Sorry, but pretending that you possess valuable knowledge is not something that’s worth our time. Get over yourself."
Says the guy responding to me.
Cal: "You seem to think that you your arbitrary preferences for definitions is what is at issue in a discussion"
The first definition of "arbitrary" I found on a Google search was "based on random choice or personal whim". As none of my definitions regarding the First Way have been random or whimsical, but are instead consistent and based upon the meaning of the First Way, I can only conclude that you either don't know what the definition of arbitrary is, or you don't read what I write.
Cal: "Discussions are about mutually agreed definitions, and applying those definitions consistently"
You don't want a discussion, you want to lecture, since you don't want me responding. Regardless, your description of a discussion is hard to do when one side (you) denies that such definitions have been given, despite the exact post being identified in which the definition is given. It's also hard to do when one side (you) refuses to accept the definition and instead turns to a strawman.
Cal: "For that reason, “in act,” or an “essentially ordered series” can be whatever you define them to be."
No they can't, because the First Way and other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle establish what they are. If I use any other definition, such as what you and SD are doing, I am no longer talking about the First Way.
Cal: "I couldn’t care less what you think “in act” means. Once again, get over yourself."
Your reaction here makes me think that my asking questions, rather than giving answers, is putting your strawman arguments and petty insults toward the First Way in a rather pathetic light. Lashing out at me in an attempt to avoid learning what the First Way is about - and therefore having to consider its conclusion - is not going to make me change my strategy.
Cal: "Define your terms clearly"
Already have, and even pointed out the posts where I did so.
Cal: "Form them into an argument that conforms to the rules of argument."
Why? The First Way already did so. And as you have yet to understand the First Way, there's no point in trying another argument.
Cal: "Stardusty explaining what this definition does to the argument (pasted yet again. sigh): "
And I took his post and, line by line, showed how he did not demonstrate any sort of gibberish, unclear meaning, etc. This occurred in my post that you quoted, March 23 at 4:07. The only thing SD demonstrated was that he has no idea what the First Argument is saying.
So, since you claim that apologists are the ones who can't absorb new information, let's differentiate yourself from those silly apologists, shall we? All of these have been answered by myself and others, many many times. I'm sure you'll claim to not care about these questions, but we both know your failure to answer them is not a result of lack of desire, but rather a lack of understanding.
What is an essentially ordered causal series?
What does "in act" mean?
What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?
Bonus question: Why is my participation in this thread a sign of vanity and a silly need, and yours is not? Clear explanation, please.
Me: "Yes. In that way, it’s very, very similar to the First Way." Legion: “That's amazing, considering the First Way was never intended to be a science-type argument.”
It’s meant to be an argument. It fails miserably. You can’t blame it’s failure on scientism. It fails all by itself, although it does, of course, suffer from the lack of understanding of physics (like phlogiston theory) that we enjoy today.
Me: “What is a valid form of discussing reality other than scientific discoveries?”
I can’t think of any productive way of discussing reality that eschews scientific knowledge. Can you?
Me: "And vanity is the best explanation for your silly need to get others to pay attention to the First Way" Legion: “So now my responding to you and SD is vanity and a silly need?:
Read what I wrote. You want us to believe that you are in possession of valuable knowledge, and for some reason you think that the First Way is your best shot. Go figure.
Legion: “You apparently want to lecture without me responding. Write your own blog then, and censor me from the comments if you don't want your lack of understanding about the First Way to be pointed out to you over there, too.”
You forget that you are the one who originally brought up the First Way, and invited me to refute it. Now you want to pretend that I am intruding. What a piece of work you are.
Legion: “We have decisively demonstrated that you and SD have no idea what the First Way is saying. Your assertion here is as meaningful as a blind man talking about how obviously ugly a painting was.”
You appear deluded.
Me: "We should care about the First Way because, apparently, you find it important." Legion: I couldn't care less if you care about the First Way, but I'm also under no obligation to withhold responses when I see you and SD engaged in the First Strawman.”
You invited me to look at the First Way and to refute it. Your rebuttals have show that you don’t know how to approach this topic rationally. As evidence, I provide this entire thread, and the several on this topic that preceded it.
Me "Sorry, but pretending that you possess valuable knowledge is not something that’s worth our time. Get over yourself." Legion: “Says the guy responding to me.”
Yes, I am responding to you, following your invitation. Now apparently you think that’s wrong of me. This doesn’t make you seem very consistent.
Me: "You seem to think that you your arbitrary preferences for definitions is what is at issue in a discussion" Legion: “The first definition of "arbitrary" I found on a Google search was "based on random choice or personal whim". As none of my definitions regarding the First Way have been random or whimsical…”
Our definitions are subject to our personal preferences — you prefer to define arbitrary as random, and I prefer to define it (per the definition you included above) as subject to personal whim. To be clear, I meant it as subject to personal whim — meaning that we are free to use words in ways that we like, so long as we are clear about what those definitions (that we prefer) are.
Legion: “…but are instead consistent and based upon the meaning of the First Way, I can only conclude that you either don't know what the definition of arbitrary is, or you don't read what I write.”
See the definition of arbitrary you provided above (“…OR PERSONAL WHIM”), and reread what I wrote and try to understand it again. I will say it another way: there is no absolutely correct definition for any term — all words are fluid, and can be imprecise. But if we are careful with our language, and take the time to be clear and refine exactly what we mean when we use words, then we can avoid the confusion that comes from disagreement over definitions.
If you can’t find a way to define a word clearly, that’s a good indication that you haven’t thought the concept through clearly, and that you’ve invited the problems that come from equivocation.
Me: "Discussions are about mutually agreed definitions, and applying those definitions consistently" Legion: “You don't want a discussion, you want to lecture, since you don't want me responding.”
I’d like a meaningful response that explains the rational reasons why the First Way isn’t refuted for the reasons that we’ve mentioned so many times now — that it’s not sound, that contradicts itself, that it’s circular, that it equivocates, and that it’s ad hoc.
Legion: “Regardless, your description of a discussion is hard to do when one side (you) denies that such definitions have been given, despite the exact post being identified in which the definition is given. It's also hard to do when one side (you) refuses to accept the definition and instead turns to a strawman.”
I quoted your definition in my last comment before you responded "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?". What more do you want me to do, exactly?
Me: "For that reason, “in act,” or an “essentially ordered series” can be whatever you define them to be." Legion: “No they can't, because the First Way and other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle establish what they are. If I use any other definition, such as what you and SD are doing, I am no longer talking about the First Way.”
What other definitions that SD and I are using? We are the ones who are taking your definition — "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?" — and showing how it renders the argument into a kind of drivel.
Cal: "I couldn’t care less what you think “in act” means. Once again, get over yourself." Legion: “Your reaction here makes me think that my asking questions, rather than giving answers, is putting your strawman arguments and petty insults toward the First Way in a rather pathetic light. Lashing out at me in an attempt to avoid learning what the First Way is about - and therefore having to consider its conclusion - is not going to make me change my strategy.”
You misunderstand, again. There is no absolute correct version of any word. The only thing that matters in a discussion is that there is agreement about terms. So far, I don’t know what more you want me to do with the fact that understanding "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?" renders the First Way into a kind of drivel.
Cal: "Define your terms clearly" Legion: “Already have, and even pointed out the posts where I did so.”
If you are happy with your efforts then I am content with mine.
Cal: "Form them into an argument that conforms to the rules of argument." Legion: “Why? The First Way already did so. And as you have yet to understand the First Way, there's no point in trying another argument.”
If you are happy with your efforts then I am content with mine.
Cal: "Stardusty explaining what this definition does to the argument (pasted yet again. sigh): " Legion: “And I took his post and, line by line, showed how he did not demonstrate any sort of gibberish, unclear meaning, etc. This occurred in my post that you quoted, March 23 at 4:07. The only thing SD demonstrated was that he has no idea what the First Argument is saying.”
If that’s what you think you did then I am content with our discussion resting where it is.
Legion: “So, since you claim that apologists are the ones who can't absorb new information, let's differentiate yourself from those silly apologists, shall we? All of these have been answered by myself and others, many many times. I'm sure you'll claim to not care about these questions, but we both know your failure to answer them is not a result of lack of desire, but rather a lack of understanding. / What is an essentially ordered causal series?”
I don’t care. Define it, and try and show me how this definition somehow saves the First Way from being such a bad argument (because that’s what we’re discussing).
Legion: "What does "in act" mean?”
I don’t care. Define it, and try and show me how this definition somehow saves the First Way from being such a bad argument (because that’s what we’re discussing).
Legion: “What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?”
I don’t care. Show me how this somehow saves the First Way from being such a bad argument (because that’s what we’re discussing).
Legion: “Bonus question: Why is my participation in this thread a sign of vanity and a silly need, and yours is not? Clear explanation, please.”
My motivation can best be explained by my compulsion to oppose hypocrisy, inconsistency, and sanctimony. (I don’t doubt that there is some vanity involved as well.)
Your motivation can best be explained by a desire to gain authority and respect (very human motivation as well), but your method for achieving this is a kind of demand to admire a bad and useless argument who’s only remarkable feature is that it serves as a kind of group marker; you want respect for something that you believe, and that signifies that you belong to a group you consider powerful, not for something that you know that is useful. I can think of few things more vain than that.
I honestly and humbly don't see how the objections cited here are actual objections at all. If act and potency are useless terms, what would constitute a "scientific" explanation of change?
If "in act" simply means to "exist", (which I don't think quite captures it) then the notion of "pure act" would indeed seem like gibberish IF "existence" must mean matter/energy.
Chris: "I honestly and humbly don't see how the objections cited here are actual objections at all."
The first way is unsound, equivocates, contradicts itself, is circular, and is ad hoc. If you don't see how those are actual objections to an argument then no one can help you.
Chris: "If act and potency are useless terms, what would constitute a "scientific" explanation of change?"
Entropy, for starters.
Chris: "If "in act" simply means to "exist", (which I don't think quite captures it)..."
Then you should try to define it more precisely so that it can be used to accurately mean something.
Chris: "... then the notion of "pure act" would indeed seem like gibberish IF "existence" must mean matter/energy."
This is a problem for those who think the terms you speak of are important conveyors of precise concepts that lend themselves to useful description.
So far, no one has been able to define these terms that save the First Way from its problems.
---------------
Hey, Chris, now that you're back, why don't you respond to the question i asked before you left:
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
Thank you for admitting that despite having no idea what the argument is saying, you still feel like you are qualified to refute it. Thank you for also demonstrating that you intentionally cast apologists in as negative a light as possible by twisting everything they say and holding them to different standards than yourself, which shows what kind of person you are. Thank you for admitting your scientism. And finally, thank you for proving every one of my points, over and over. The First Way stands unrefuted by you, so you have retreated into insults and not even attempting to show that it's bad. I'm content at leaving it here - with you having no idea what you're talking about, and doing everything you can to avoid engaging with it. Here is yet another example of the mighty intellectual prowess within the anti-theist movement.
Chris: "If "in act" simply means to "exist", (which I don't think quite captures it)"
Keep in mind, we are dealing with people who ignore inconvenient posts that instantly refute what they are saying, deny they have been refuted when they obviously have been, and cast everything we say in as negative or absurd a fashion as one could imagine. With this mindset, simplistic definitions that are largely synonymous just to prevent them from engaging in further strawman arguments is as good as it can get.
Now in the case of Cal, with his last series of posts to me, he has admitted he doesn't know what the argument means and simply doesn't care, and is even retreating from attempting to use the First Strawman argument. Cal freely shows that his strategy is to conclude that the First Way can't be right, and then ridicule it. You showed the correct way to do it early on - learn what the argument is actually saying, and then analyze and rate it. Cal has no interest in learning it, and SD believes he already understands it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That's why I began simply asking questions rather than explaining for the 500th time. Rather than asserting their errors, I am demonstrating them.
The critics have charged the FW as being circular. Either I can't be helped or the critics are not making a good case. Pehaps it's both, I'm not sure. In any event, it seems to me that the unchanged changer is not assumed in the argument.
Entropy strikes me as being a fine example of the act/potency distinction. Something is this, has the potential to be that.
The terms are pretty clear as is the conclusion. In a causal chain that is accidentally ordered, it could go on infinitely. In a causal chain that is essentially ordered , it could not. Why? The members in the chain do not have the power of change in the themselves, they are merely instruments in the series. Is that right?
Legion: “Thank you for admitting that despite having no idea what the argument is saying, you still feel like you are qualified to refute it.”
Yes, it’s true that anyone who understands the rules of argument is qualified to refute bad arguments. No specialized knowledge is needed to do this.
Legion: “Thank you for also demonstrating that you intentionally cast apologists in as negative a light as possible by twisting everything they say and holding them to different standards than yourself, which shows what kind of person you are.”
I think you mean that I confessed to feeling compelled to expose hypocrisy, inconsistency, and sanctimony. The fact that the light I shine on these things makes apologists appear to be dishonest (and often quite shabby as well) is not my fault. You guys just keep doing stuff that’s easy to expose as the sham it is.
Legion: “Thank you for admitting your scientism.”
Like this. Why you appear detestable isn’t because you are wrong; you appear detestable because rather than correct your beliefs you try to lash out at others. This does more to confirm my theory that a lack of humility is at the heart of much ignorance, and that moral failings seem to be so often intertwined with false beliefs.
Legion: “And finally, thank you for proving every one of my points, over and over.”
You appear to live in your own fantasy world. This is common among narcissists.
Legion: “The First Way stands unrefuted by you, so you have retreated into insults and not even attempting to show that it's bad.”
My insults are reflections of your behavior, and explanations for my observations. You don’t cast yourself in a good light, and my explanations are blunt. Still, they seem most likely right, and they predict much of what you do, so I won’t shy away from them.
Legion: “I'm content at leaving it here - with you having no idea what you're talking about, and doing everything you can to avoid engaging with it.”
I invited you to define your terms precisely and accurately, so they could be used within the argument you are claiming to defend. For all of these comments, you have run away from this invitation. And you are still running.
Any claim at your having achieved some sort of victory here is nothing more than a testament to the fantasy world you live in.
Chris: "The members in the chain do not have the power of change in the themselves, they are merely instruments in the series. Is that right?"
Yes. A chain link pulls, but only because it is being pulled. A mirror reflects, but only because it has an image to reflect. Take away the first link of the chain, or take away the image being reflected, and they instantly lose their ability to change other things. Those are essentially ordered, as opposed to accidentally ordered, such as grandparents causing the parents causing the child - the grandparents and parents do not need to continue existing in order for the child to exist.
Everything you said in your last post is laughable nonsense. Especially the blatant lie that I have attempted to avoid defining the terms - I even listed the post where I did so.
So in addition to the rest of my gratitude, thank you for proving that you are a liar.
It also appears to me that the critics of the FW are implying that, at the end of the day, the First Way and the Kalam argument are fundamentally the same and fail for the same reason- going back temporally into the past or going "down" into reality in the present moment doesn't make a difference. An infinite regress is an infinite regress, and the problem is not "solved" by a "infinite" Being that is "pure existence" because that is incoherent.
Legion: “Everything you said in your last post is laughable nonsense. Especially the blatant lie that I have attempted to avoid defining the terms - I even listed the post where I did so.”
I think you mean your post at 4:07 — I think that’s the only one where you later claimed to have defined your terms. I looked it over, and I found no clear definition of terms. These two quips are the best you seem to have come up with in your now famous 4:07 post”
1. Legion: “Motion in the argument is the realization of a potential state, so this is essentially correct. The realization of a potential state brings that state into existence.” and 2. Legion: “in act" = actualized/existing/etc?”
So, that’s it. Those are your precise, clear definition of terms, the ones that you seem to think save the First Way, and make it all clear.
Let’s replace your definitions in the argument and see how that actually clears up the argument for real, instead of in the fantasy land in which you dwell:
(1) For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world realizes of a potential state. (2) But, all that is realized of a potential state, is realized of a potential state by another. a. Nothing is, in fact, realized of a potential state, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is realized of a potential state. b. But, a thing realizes of a potential state only insomuch as it is in actualized/existing/etc. c. In fact, to realize a potential state is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to actualized/existing. d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to actualized/existing, unless it is by a thing that is in actualized/existing. i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning actualized/existing, and in this way the wood is realized of a potential state and altered. e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously actualized/existing/etc 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 realizing of a potential state and is realized of a potential state,or in other words, that it realizes of a potential state itself. g. It follows, therefore, that all that is realized of a potential state is realized of a potential state by another. (3) If, therefore, that which realizes of a potential state is realized of a potential state, then it must be realized of a potential state 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 realizer of a potential state; and consequently, no thing would realize of a potential state another, b. Because second realizers of a potential states do not realize of a potential state unless they are realized of a potential state by a first realizer of a potential stater, in the same way that a cane is not realized of a potential state unless it is realized of a potential state by a hand. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first realizer of a potential state which is not realized of a potential state: a. and this is what all consider to be God.
Lol.
But please, do as you say you can. Just provide clear, precise terms that save the above from being total drivel.
You won’t because you can’t. So you will go on and claim that you have done somewhere else, before, even though those who comb these comments will never, ever find you or any other apologists providing precise definitions that somehow magically save the First Way from itself.
Chris: "The critics have charged the FW as being circular. Either I can't be helped or the critics are not making a good case. "
I'll try and help you.
How does the First Way determine that an infinite regress is impossible? The First Way says, "Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another."
The argument seeks to demonstrate that because we observe things in a state of change, there must be a first mover, rather than an infinite regress, that propels this observed change. In the quote above, the two reasons it gives in conjunction for this conclusion is that a) there must be a first mover otherwise there would not be a first mover (?), and b) there must be a first mover in order for us to observe change. But in order to demonstrate this, the argument most show that the source of observed change cannot proceed infinitely. And the reason that it gives for this conclusion is, well, that the source of observed change cannot proceed infinitely.
Respectfully, you are disregarding the distinction between an essentially ordered series and accidentally ordered series. If all causal relationships are accidental, then I see your point. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as a series in which the members of the chain have only instrumental or derivative causal efficacy?
Congratulations, you have also demonstrated that you don't know how language and communication work.
"The person named Cal went to the person named Cal's house to get the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards because the person named Cal accidentally left the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards there when the person named Cal stopped by to use the person named Cal's bathroom."
We can of course use the above in place of "Cal went to his house to get his wallet because he accidentally left it there when he stopped by to use his bathroom." In doing so, however, we make ourselves look like complete idiots.
The argument defines motion as the actualization of a potential state. When he says move or motion, he means the actualization of a potential state, because he defines what he means in the argument. That does not make it appropriate, for communication, to replace the one word with its defining phrase every time it occurs.
The definitions have been provided. You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of act or an essentially ordered series. But please, continue amusing me with your antics.
Chris: "Respectfully, you are disregarding the distinction between an essentially ordered series and accidentally ordered series. If all causal relationships are accidental, then I see your point. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as a series in which the members of the chain have only instrumental or derivative causal efficacy?"
Nope. I'm pointing out that the First Way fails to demonstrate that an unmoved mover is required (if one accepts the earlier premises), rather than an infinite regress.
Please understand that the First Way doesn't fail because it obviously makes the wrong conclusion; the First Way fails where it makes a conclusion by resorting to circularity. Pointing out where an argument fails doesn't mean that one necessarily subscribes to the conclusion's alternative, or even that the conclusion is wrong -- only that the argument fails in at least some of the ways that arguments fail.
Legion: ""The person named Cal went to the person named Cal's house to get the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards because the person named Cal accidentally left the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards there when the person named Cal stopped by to use the person named Cal's bathroom."
This is long-winded but it makes perfect sense to me -- and it's semantically identical to the shorter version. Why do you think it makes you sound like an idiot?
Legion: "The argument defines motion as the actualization of a potential state. When he says move or motion, he means the actualization of a potential state, because he defines what he means in the argument. That does not make it appropriate, for communication, to replace the one word with its defining phrase every time it occurs."
The point being that your supposed "definition" makes the argument even less clear (as well as longer). When a longer, more explicit version fails to clarify something more compact, then you can be sure you have a problem with your thinking.
Your supposedly clarifying language only makes the argument less clear and explicit. This is why your supposed "definition" is an obvious failure, and why the kindest thing to do is to ignore your request to treat it as I have. Still, you insisted.
Legion: "The definitions have been provided."
Your "definitions" fail to make the argument better -- I think they actually make it even less clear, and more muddled (and that's saying something).
Legion: "You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of act or an essentially ordered series."
Your definitions fail to clarify an already muddled argument. You appear to live a narcissist's fantasy land.
Cal: "This is long-winded but it makes perfect sense to me"
I can say the same with SD's replacement with "existent" and yours with "realized of a potential state", although you use the wrong word forms and unrealistic sentence structure very, very often:
"For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world realizes of a potential state", no one would say this, for example. But they might say "things in this world bring about the realization of potential states". It's much more verbose than it should be, but it is still functional and gives the same meaning. Your refusal to adjust the phrasing to make the sentences more clear is on you, not the definition.
At any rate, I can read both and get the same meaning, largely due to my understanding the point of the argument. So the definition is obviously not the problem. I'm sorry that you think reality is a fantasy land.
We are approaching 900 comments, which is probably embarrassing. However, I appear to not have enough hobbies and am enjoying myself, so here I remain.
Cal, I am perfectly willing to do a series of posts in which we both analyze each segment of the argument using the exact same agreed-upon definitions so there can be no dodging or moving of goalposts. If you are willing to participate, let me know and I will lay out the definitions I propose we use (I have them written down and ready), and you can agree whether you find them acceptable. If you don't want to do this, let me know and we can walk away from this thread, since nothing is going to get accomplished as is. I'm assuming you might be interested based upon your continued presence here, but I could be wrong there. '
For the record, your accusations of narcissism are ridiculous. I'm engaged in this because 1) I frankly enjoy discussing ideas, though the amount of snark I've unleashed in kind is likely shameful, 2) I find the metaphysics being discussed fascinating, and 3) I'd love to analyze the First Way with someone who understands it but still disagrees, since that is where flaws in my thinking would be revealed. Between you and SD, I think you are the one who has the capacity to grasp the argument and disagree on its own terms, which is why I'm throwing out this next offer to you. Let me know.
I am going to have to ask you to cut me some slack here- what you are calling circular, I am calling consistent. IF you accept an essentially ordered series and IF you accept that observed change is real and not illusory, than the unchanged changer follows from the premises. What am I not seeing? Lol, feel free to chime in.
Legion: "Cal, I am perfectly willing to do a series of posts in which we both analyze each segment of the argument using the exact same agreed-upon definitions so there can be no dodging or moving of goalposts. If you are willing to participate, let me know and I will lay out the definitions I propose we use (I have them written down and ready), and you can agree whether you find them acceptable. "
Knock yourself out.
I'm going to be busy over the next few days / week, so I won't be able to respond very quickly.
Legion: "Between you and SD, I think you are the one who has the capacity to grasp the argument and disagree on its own terms, which is why I'm throwing out this next offer to you."
I agree with pretty much everything Stardusty has written here, and I admire his panache. I think you might have better luck with him because while we seem to share a similar compulsion, he seems a lot more knowledgeable than me on this topic. Plus he's probably a lot smarter, which might make him less obstinate.
"I think you are the one who has the capacity to grasp the argument and disagree on its own terms, which is why I'm throwing out this next offer to you."
Never in the internet land I have seen such faith.
"Never in the internet land I have seen such faith."
At one point, he did grasp part of it. That's more than SD has accomplished so far. My experience with SD on multiple sites is once he stakes out a position, he becomes the unmoved non-mover. He can't convince anyone else of his position, nor will he be convinced of anything, so it's just futility. Cal proved that he thought about it and grasped it, even if fleetingly, so that's far ahead of SD.
Here are my first draft definitions. Anyone feel free to refine or refute them.
In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice.
Potential: a state that could, but does not, exist. Water at room temperature is not frozen, but it could be given the right conditions, thus ice is a potential state of water.
Motion: the process of a potential state becoming actualized, i.e. change. Water that has frozen into ice has undergone motion, as it is a potential state becoming an actualized state.
Essentially ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is actively required for the existence of the series, since each step of the series derives its causal power from change being acted upon it. A train or a chain are essentially ordered - Boxcar B pulls Boxcars C through Z, but if the engine is removed, all boxcars will cease moving since Boxcar B derives its pulling power from the engine.
Accidentally ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is not actively required for the existence of the series. The grandparents produce the parents who produce the child, but the existence of the grandparents or parents is not required for the continued existence of the child.
Aquinas contrasts this with potential things - things which COULD exist but do not. The reason he does this is to set up the essentially ordered series later, so while it is a simple concept that might make one wonder why in the world he would point it out, it actually is for a reason.
That's why I earlier used "existing" as a synonym, because if it exists, it is in act - whatever state it is in is actualized, not potential.
I'm not sure how to clarify except through example. Given the right conditions, water can turn to ice, so ice is a potential state of water. Given the right conditions, wood can burn, so burning is a potential state of wood. When I say "potential things" - which I will try to avoid - I'm really talking about potential states of a thing.
"Aquinas contrasts this with potential things - things which COULD exist but do not."
I am going to repent saying this, but this is not quite correct. For one, it collapses potentiality into mere possibility.
To understand potentiality, and why Aristotle posits it (and Aquinas in the First Way and the circle of ideas surrounding it does not advance much beyond Aristotle), you have to go to his arguments that change is real, starting with his response to the argument of Parmenides that change is illusory (and also the response to the extreme opposite held by Heraclites, that permanence or persistence is illusory, everything being in permanent state of flux) -- after all, it is not a coincidence that the First Mover is also called the Unchanged Changer.
"How would you word it as an attempt at a concise definition?"
"Concise definition"? Here is Garrigou-Lagrange's from "Reality: a Thomistic synthesis, chapter 5":
"But now this determinableness, transformableness: what is it positively? What is this real, objective potency, presupposed to motion, to mutation, to transformation? It is a real capacity to receive a definite, determined form, the form, say, of the statue, a capacity which is not in air or water, but is in wood, or marble, or sand. This capacity to become a statue is the statue in potency."
The point here is that potentiality cannot be reduced to simple possibility, but is a real, objective feature of existing things (or to be more precise of all composites of act and potency, that is, everything with the exception of God), a sort of medium between act and non-being.
You do know what is going to happen, right? You will be charged with being "obscure", "confused" and "muddled". To an intellectually dishonest, uneducated idiot, everything is "obscure", "confused" and "muddled". Consider the following three sentences:
1. Every paracompact, Hausdorff, normal, second-countable differentiable manifold admits a triangulation.
2. The category of perverse sheaves is the heart of the perverse t-structure on the bounded derived category of sheaves of an analytic space with constructible cohomology.
3. The triangulation of a complex of sheaves of finite height is isomorphic to its dual.
One sentence is true, one is false and the other is a "word salad", but I am pretty confident that only a mathematician could tell which is which, and the reasons for his choice (that is, without guessing).
"It is a real capacity to receive a definite, determined form, the form, say, of the statue, a capacity which is not in air or water, but is in wood, or marble, or sand. This capacity to become a statue is the statue in potency."
So, rather than calling it a possibility, maybe something like "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized", like the capacity for water to turn to ice given the correct conditions? I re-read Feser's Aquinas, and I see why you are pointing out the distinction.
Right. Feser does indeed the same distinction. He probably learned it from Garrigou-Lagrange; so here he is again, from the link in my previous post:
"Many authors of manuals of philosophy ignore this divergence and give hardly more than nominal definitions of potency and act. They offer us the accepted axioms, but they do not make clear why it is necessary to admit potency as a reality between absolute nothing and actually existing being. Nor do they show how and wherein real potency is distinguished, on the one hand, from privation and simple possibility, and on the other from even the most imperfect act."
And a little further down, noting the essential distinction between creation and change (and with a sketch of an argument for the existence of God no less):
"St. Thomas excels in explaining this distinction, just now noted, between passive potency and active potency. Real passive potency is not simple possibility. Simple possibility is prerequired and suffices for creation ex nihilo. But it does not suffice as prerequisite for motion, change, mutation. Mutation presupposes a real subject, determinable, transformable, mutable, whereas creation is the production of the entire created being, without any presupposed real potency. [158] Now, since active potency, active power, must be greater in proportion to its passive correlative, it follows that when passive potency is reduced to zero, the active potency must be infinite. In other words, the most universal of effects, the being of all things, cannot be produced except by the most universal of all causes, that is, by the Supreme Being."
In order for a thing to undergo change and still remain the same thing (as opposed to going out of existence every instant and something else coming into existence instead) that thing must actually be something with a natural potential to change while still remaining essentially the same thing.
So for instance a human child has the natural potential to become an adult given air, water, food etc. We can know this because as adults we can remember when we were a child. However, a human child does not have a natural potential to sprout wings and fly away. That is not a natural potential.
So a thing naturally has both an actual state of being and movement toward its potential state of being. The range of natural future potential states is not infinite, but dependent on what kind of thing it is (it's nature). Also, being part of the nature of a thing, potency does not exist independently of that nature that is actually existing.
Aristotle and Aquinas also speak of the mix of act and potency as more or less perfecting the nature of a thing. So the more a thing actually changes toward its perfect nature, the more it is actually perfect and the potency toward that end it has. A perfect thing would have no potential left for perfection and so would be actually perfect.
Legion: "I'm not sure how to clarify except through example. Given the right conditions, water can turn to ice, so ice is a potential state of water."
Ice is a state of water makes sense. And ice is a potential state of water makes sense.
Legion: "Given the right conditions, wood can burn, so burning is a potential state of wood. When I say "potential things" - which I will try to avoid - I'm really talking about potential states of a thing. "
It sounds to me that you are defining potential to be a list of the possible states that an existing thing can be. So, in that case, potential would mean "the thing in a different state from the one it presently exists." Or something like that. Do you agree, or disagree?
Grod: "The point here is that potentiality cannot be reduced to simple possibility, but is a real, objective feature of existing things (or to be more precise of all composites of act and potency, that is, everything with the exception of God), a sort of medium between act and non-being."
This just seems to reduce potential to a kind of Platonism.
Grod: "1. Every paracompact, Hausdorff, normal, second-countable differentiable manifold admits a triangulation. / 2. The category of perverse sheaves is the heart of the perverse t-structure on the bounded derived category of sheaves of an analytic space with constructible cohomology. / 3. The triangulation of a complex of sheaves of finite height is isomorphic to its dual. One sentence is true, one is false and the other is a "word salad", but I am pretty confident that only a mathematician could tell which is which, and the reasons for his choice (that is, without guessing)."
Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms.
Me: "Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms." Grod: "And another point-missing idiotic comment."
Only in apologetics land is the suggestion that one needs to clearly define terms in order to examine arguments considered to be missing the point and idiotic.
"Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms."
I wouldn't be able to know which statements were false, and why, even with clear definitions. You don't become knowledgeable about a subject just by being spoon fed clear definitions.
Cal. You can learn some things that way, but in this case you are being overly simplistic. Think book knowledge vs. applied/experiential/street knowledge. If you think learning pages and pages of definitions puts you on equal footing with everyone else, you are mistaken.
Stevek: "If you think learning pages and pages of definitions puts you on equal footing with everyone else, you are mistaken."
LOL. If there has been one refrain from the apologists over the course of these threads it's that the First Way would be understood to be a good argument if only skeptics would waste their time poring over some pages and pages of unspecified definitions, instead of relying on the principles that we use for evaluating arguments.
FYI, this is my updated version of the argument using the definitions offered by Legion so far. I think that adopting the definitions offered by Legion does help make the equivocations easier to spot (e.g, "... to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from a state to existence." ???), without resolving any of the problems pointed out throughout these threads.
(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 a state to that towards which it is moved. b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it exists. c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from a state to existence. d. But, it is not possible that a thing be made to exist, unless it is by a thing that exists. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is in a possible state of burning, to be actually burning, and in this way the wood is moved and altered. e. But it is not possible that the same thing simultaneously exists and in state in the same sense, but only in a different sense. That, in effect, which is actually burning, cannot at the same time be in a possible state of burning, but is simultaneously in a possible state of 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.
" Given the right conditions, water can turn to ice, so ice is a potential state of water. Given the right conditions, wood can burn, so burning is a potential state of wood. When I say "potential things" - which I will try to avoid - I'm really talking about potential states of a thing."
Which is all very simplistic medieval language that attempts to make some ordered sense of the world in pre-scientific times.
So, it makes sense at our ordinary level of observation that only a moving thing makes a stationary thing move. Only a hot thing makes a cold thing hot.
Aquinas makes a series of such basic observations as our senses perceive them, our senses being cited by Aquinas at the outset. So fine for Aquinas in making such reasonable ordinary observations.
Unfortunately, those observations defeat his later arguments by self contradiction. In a vain attempt to save this medieval foolishness called the First Way later apologists try to assign "act=existence" to the plain language reasonableness of the first lines of the First Way.
This "act=existence" attempt only botches the plain language clarity of Aquinas turning his words into pointless babble, not even an argument any more, just inane statements about things that exist.
Cal reiterates this theological inanity in April 04, 2017 12:37 PM.
So, was Aquinas a self contradictory apologist who publish logically invalid and unsound arguments, or did he spout inane babble that does not even qualify as an argument?
Since this is not a comprehensive course on everything Aquinas, I personally think "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice. I'll give the others time to chime in and fine-tune it if they desire before I proceed.
You will be welcome to chime in as we go, assuming you agree to use the definitions the rest of us will be using. If you disagree with the definitions, then you're welcome to offer your own, but keep in mind that we are using the definitions as understood by Aquinas and as used throughout all of his and Aristotle's works, which is the basis for why we use the definitions we do, so your justification for any offered definitions must be based on what Aquinas believed, not what you believe. If it's going to be an analysis of the First Way via consistent agreed-upon terminology in order to show its strength or its weakness, then it has to be done on Aquinas' terms, not our own.
Legion: "If it's going to be an analysis of the First Way via consistent agreed-upon terminology in order to show its strength or its weakness, then it has to be done on Aquinas' terms, not our own."
"Consistent, agreed upon terminology" are our terms. Whatever Aquinas thinks about our terminology can't be known, so let's stay with agreeing to consistent, agreed upon terms.
Legion: "Since this is not a comprehensive course on everything Aquinas, I personally think "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice."
So, to avoid confusion, potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has no state?
How can a thing be a thing if it has no state? This terminology doesn't seem to make sense.
" You will be welcome to chime in as we go, assuming you agree to use the definitions the rest of us will be using. " The definition "act=existence" has been used by the rest of "you" on many occasions.
" in order to show its strength or its weakness, then it has to be done on Aquinas' terms, not our own." Many of "you" have asserted "act=existence". If such folks were wrong, fine.
" I personally think "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice. "
That definition suffices for tautological assertions of the form "stuff that can do x is the kind of stuff that does x."
"Only stuff that can do x does x"
You have rendered Aquinas to be pointless babble, again.
Cal: "Consistent, agreed upon terminology" are our terms."
Indeed. The definitions I am offering are based upon the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and modern scholars who have studied their works. Point being, I'm not just making it up.
"So, to avoid confusion, potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has no state? How can a thing be a thing if it has no state? This terminology doesn't seem to make sense."
I see I should avoid any form of the word "act" or "actual" in my definitions.
Potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is not currently realized or in effect - such as wood having the capacity to burn given the correct conditions, thus wood can potentially burn.
Stardusty: "The definition "act=existence" has been used by the rest of "you" on many occasions."
The definition I have offered for my conversation with Cal is: "In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice." While I may have to come up with synonyms of "actualized" for this definition, my proposed working definition of "act" is "in an actualized state".
"Only stuff that can do x does x"
That's actually something to keep in mind for later, or rather the inverse of it. Regardless, right now it's "agree upon definitions" time. The futility of not doing so has already been demonstrated at length.
Here are my proposed brief definitions:
In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice.
Potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is not currently realized or in effect - such as water having the capacity to freeze into ice given the correct conditions, thus water can potentially freeze into ice.
Motion: the process of a potential state becoming actualized, i.e. change. Water that has frozen into ice has undergone motion, as it is a potential state becoming an actualized state.
Essentially ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is actively required for the existence of the series, since each step of the series derives its causal power from change being acted upon it. A train or a chain are essentially ordered - Boxcar B pulls Boxcars C through Z, but if the engine is removed, all boxcars will cease moving since Boxcar B derives its pulling power from the engine.
Accidentally ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is not actively required for the existence of the series. The grandparents produce the parents who produce the child, but the existence of the grandparents or parents is not required for the continued existence of the child.
" That's actually something to keep in mind for later, or rather the inverse of it. Regardless, right now it's "agree upon definitions" time. The futility of not doing so has already been demonstrated at length.
Here are my proposed brief definitions:"
Those definitions have no place in any serious modern discussion of causality, which is why you will not find them employed by modern physicists. They are ancient and medieval terms that have long since been obsoleted.
You can define any words to mean anything you want. There is no god of language. Language is an anarchy that has order only by convention. So you wish to employ those particular definitions, fine, they will lead to the tautology I cite above and/or the invalid argument structures pointed out in great deal many times further above.
If you wish to enter into a serious modern discussion about the origins of existence you will need rid yourself of these obsolete notions.
Okay. That's how you feel about it. However, in this proposal to Cal to discuss the First Way argument as written, I offered to provide definitions for the main terms Aquinas used - based upon how Aristotle, Aquinas, and modern Thomists use them - so that we are both on the same page as far as interpreting each line. Cal agreed to do so. If Cal agrees with me that my proposed definitions suffice, then we'll proceed.
If you reject the definitions, as I said you are welcome to propose your own and the justifications for using them. If you do as you did and reject the argument entirely, before you even understand it, this discussion is obviously not for you.
" If you do as you did and reject the argument entirely, before you even understand it, this discussion is obviously not for you."
My understanding of the argument is vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist. I understand the glaring defects of the argument, whereas you, apparently, do not.
Your definitions lead to a tautology at best, as a trade off for one instance of self contradiction. Your definitions do nothing to repair the subsequent begging the question, ad hoc and false assertion, and false dichotomy flaws of this medieval mess of an "argument" for god.
For example, your definition of "act" yields this babble:
2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another. a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is moved. b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in an actualized state. c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to in an actualized state. d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to in an actualized state, unless it is by a thing that is in an actualized state. i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in an actualized state, and in this way the wood is moved and altered. e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in an actualized state 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.
The above becomes meaningless drivel, but let's just focus one one key item 2d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to in an actualized state, unless it is by a thing that is in an actualized state.
What does that mean? On it's face, nothing. All it says is that a thing in a state causes a thing to be in a state. That by itself is mere babble.
Aquinas does better than that, however, giving the example that clearly demonstrates his intent, that a thing is caused to change by the same SORT of thing. A hot thing causes a cold thing to become hot. That makes sense. That is a reasonable statement at our ordinary level of observation.
But that very reasonable statement is what you apologists are doing mental gymnastics to avoid, because it leads to later self contradictions in the argument.
So you reduce Aquinas to tautological babble to avoid a later self contradiction.
How does that somehow satisfy the theological individual?
SP: "My understanding of the argument is vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist."
Sure.
SP: "Your definitions do nothing to repair the subsequent begging the question, ad hoc and false assertion, and false dichotomy flaws of this medieval mess of an "argument" for god."
If true, it will be demonstrated later. Of course, we won't reach that point until everyone agrees on the definitions to be used.
SP: "What does that mean? On it's face, nothing. All it says is that a thing in a state causes a thing to be in a state. That by itself is mere babble."
On its face, it means that you don't have a clue what the argument is demonstrating with this premise if you think it's meaningless babble, which also indicates you don't have a clue what Aquinas is talking about later on, either. 2d essentially says a potential state of a thing cannot cause change in something else - it takes something in an actualized state. And he has a reason for stating this - but that's later on in the argument.
If you have an alternative definition for "in act" you'd like to share, then share it and justify it based on what Aquinas believed, and not what you believe.
"Only in apologetics land is the suggestion that one needs to clearly define terms in order to examine arguments considered to be missing the point and idiotic."
Only a moron and a proven intellectually dishonest liar, responds to a point one never made while missing the point one has made.
"My understanding of the argument is vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist. I understand the glaring defects of the argument, whereas you, apparently, do not."
Here we have a proven crank and delusional kook, in a state of cognitive dissonance so severe that he bawls out that his understanding of the argument is "vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist", when his "understanding" is no such thing, because it *directly contradicts* what the defenders of the argument say the argument is, something that can be *proved* with an abundance of textual evidence. And then we have Mr. Metzger cheerleading for this idiot.
Truly you cannot make this stuff up.
I said it before and I will say it again: these guys do not need arguments, they need psychiatric help.
". 2d essentially says a potential state of a thing cannot cause change in something else " But everything is in some sort of potential state, per your medieval definitions.
"- it takes something in an actualized state." But everything is also in some sort of actualized state, per your medieval definitions.
" If you have an alternative definition for "in act" you'd like to share, then share it and justify it based on what Aquinas believed," I'll do better than that, and already have, many times. I will justify it with the explanation Aquinas provides adjacent to the usage of the term... ***actually hot***
Aquinas does not use the tautological babble asserted on this thread time and again, rather, Aquinas makes a reasonable statement that is sensible at our ordinary level of experience. Only a thing in actuality can cause a potential thing to change to that actuality. Only a hot thing can make a cold thing hot. Only a moving hand can make a staff move.
"Actually" is not a word to be used alone, rather, it is an adverb used to describe something else either really in a particular state or only potentially in a particular state.
Aquinas make this clear in the argument itself. Aquinas uses "actually" with reasonable specificity, in its proper role as an adverb, but that leads him to contradict himself later as his argument inevitably breaks down under that specificity.
To avoid that breakdown you destroy the reasonable specificity Aquinas used, rendering 2d nothing more than a pointless tautology, thus destroying the First Way at that point.
"his understanding of the argument is "vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist", when his "understanding" is no such thing, because it *directly contradicts* what the defenders of the argument say the argument is, " You have that back to front. My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is.
Newsflash, Aristotle was wrong. I understand the arguments of Aristotle vastly better than Aristotle understood his own arguments because I know how wrong he was and he did not have that knowledge.
The same is true of Aquinas, who largely derived his views from Aristotle, thus building on a false foundation.
"You have that back to front. My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is."
And here is how we know Stardusty is a crank and a delusional kook. He explicitly acknowledges that his understanding of the argument contradicts the understanding of its defenders, without realizing that this *just* is the acknowledgment that he is attacking a strawman. Which has always been the point of just about anyone here. But since he is a moron and lacks the most elementary reading skills, in his fantasies he misunderstands the situation as his understanding being superior because he has uncovered the flaws that "Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist" have failed to spot.
Stardusty: "But everything is in some sort of potential state, per your medieval definitions."
There is a huge difference between having a potential state - which is how I would word it - and BEING IN a potential state, which would make it an actualized state. Also, why point out medieval? Does medieval = wrong to you?
Stardusty: "But everything is also in some sort of actualized state, per your medieval definitions."
That's not a problem.
Stardusty: "I'll do better than that, and already have, many times."
No you haven't, and I'll explain why. You say "Only a hot thing can make a cold thing hot." Let's use the example of a match igniting wood.
The point of showing that a lit match causes wood to burn is not "See? The match makes the wood burn because the match is hot." While that is true, it's not the point of the argument. What Aquinas is getting at is in the sentence directly prior to giving the burning wood example - "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality." A match that is not burning has the potential to burn, but that potential is not enough to cause wood to ignite. The potential state has to become an actualized state in order to cause change to the wood. Aquinas is showing that only actualized states can cause change - potential states are unable to cause change.
This is one of the key principles for analyzing essentially ordered causal series later - the mechanical method of cause/effect transference is irrelevant in the context of the argument. Potential states cannot cause change - that's the lesson to take away, because it's one of the core premises for later.
If you can't get that, you have no chance of ever understanding the argument.
>> "My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is"
Because your understanding isn't the same, your understanding is superior. Wow, that's some real nifty logic you got there, Dusty. Your safety helmet must be strapped on extra tight today.
" He explicitly acknowledges that his understanding of the argument contradicts the understanding of its defenders, without realizing that this *just* is the acknowledgment that he is attacking a strawman. "
Aristotle was wrong. Aquinas was wrong. Contradicting those who fail to recognize the errors of these long obsoleted authors indicates greater knowledge than Aristotle, Aquinas, or their "modern" defenders had or have.
Stardusty: "But everything is in some sort of potential state, per your medieval definitions."
" There is a huge difference between having a potential state - which is how I would word it - and BEING IN a potential state, which would make it an actualized state." You are going in circles, indicating the uselessness of your ancient vernacular.
" Also, why point out medieval? Does medieval = wrong to you?" In physics and causality, yes. Physics and causality had not been developed at that time. All medieval people were wrong on these subjects.
Stardusty: "But everything is also in some sort of actualized state, per your medieval definitions."
" That's not a problem." The vagueness of your language leads to tautologies, which most people consider to be a problem in a logical argument.
Stardusty: "I'll do better than that, and already have, many times."
No you haven't, and I'll explain why. You say "Only a hot thing can make a cold thing hot." Let's use the example of a match igniting wood.
" The point of showing that a lit match causes wood to burn is not "See? The match makes the wood burn because the match is hot." While that is true, it's not the point of the argument." Now you are a mind reader of 7 centuries past.
" What Aquinas is getting at is in the sentence directly prior to giving the burning wood example - "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality."" Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
A match that is not burning has the potential to burn, but that potential is not enough to cause wood to ignite. The potential state has to become an actualized state in order to cause change to the wood. Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
" Aquinas is showing that only actualized states can cause change - potential states are unable to cause change." Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
" This is one of the key principles for analyzing essentially ordered causal series later - the mechanical method of cause/effect transference is irrelevant in the context of the argument. Potential states cannot cause change - that's the lesson to take away, because it's one of the core premises for later." Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
" If you can't get that, you have no chance of ever understanding the argument." I understand that "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
Actually moving is caused by nothing except actually moving. This leads to Aquinas contradicting himself.
>> "My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is"
" Because your understanding isn't the same, your understanding is superior." No, my understanding is superior because it contradicts those who defend arguments long demonstrated to be grossly erroneous.
I understand much more about Aristotle than Aristotle understood, because I understand how wrong he was, and how wrong his adherents such as Aquinas were, and therefore how wrong "modern" Thomists are.
"You are going in circles, indicating the uselessness of your ancient vernacular."
Your inability to grasp the concept - which is actually a very simple concept - does not make the terminology bad. You simply don't have a clue and don't want to learn.
"In physics and causality, yes."
It's not a physics argument. And since you don't have a clue what the argument is saying, you can't even rate what bearing science would have on it.
"Now you are a mind reader of 7 centuries past."
It's called reading what they wrote to see what they thought - something you obviously can't or won't do. Aquinas wrote far more than just the First Way, you know.
"Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot"."
With emphasis on "actually" and not "hot", something you simply can't grasp.
Look, Stardusty, I know you are psychologically incapable of admitting that a position you hold is wrong, such as the majority of what you have written regarding the First Way. I offered Cal for me and him to agree upon set definitions and then proceeding line by line to see what Aquinas is actually saying.
The reason I keep telling you about your errors is to hopefully get you to stop making them, but you have no interest in exploring issues once you decide you understand them. As such, I'm giving you one last chance to consider the reason I'm telling you where you are wrong (hint: the reason is not because I'm the one who's wrong). If you are unable to stop repeating the same errors that have been pointed out to you over and over, then I'm not going to respond to you any more. I don't say that like I expect it will hurt your feelings or something like that - your opinion doesn't matter to me - but your intentional nonsense is a useless distraction from actual discussion of the First Way, which you frankly have yet to do.
Either admit you are wrong based upon our clear demonstrations that you don't understand anything about the argument, or this is my last post addressing you and I will focus on Cal, who showed evidence that he is capable of being shown something not based on his own opinions.
" It's not a physics argument. And since you don't have a clue what the argument is saying, you can't even rate what bearing science would have on it."
Motion is physics. Causality is physics. Any argument for the origin of existence or the origin of motion or the origin of change of any value is necessarily a physics argument.
SP "Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot"."
" With emphasis on "actually" and not "hot", something you simply can't grasp." The word "actually" has no substantial meaning except in relationship to something else. That is what you fail to grasp.
If I say "x is actually" I have made an incomplete and pointless statement. Actually what?
Gasoline is actually. (pointless and incomplete statement) Gasoline is actually burning. (a meaningful statement)
Something that is actually causes something that is actually. (a tautological, pointless, and hopelessly vague statement)
Something that is actually hot causes something else to become actually hot. (a meaningful statement, which Aquinas made, but no theist here seems able to grasp)
" Look, Stardusty, I know you are psychologically incapable of admitting that a position you hold is wrong," You have thus far failed to demonstrate any of my positions as wrong.
" I offered Cal for me and him to agree upon set definitions and then proceeding line by line to see what Aquinas is actually saying." Ok, you pretty much captured the fuzzy thinking of that era with your definitions.
" The reason I keep telling you about your errors is to hopefully get you to stop making them," You have yet to validly point out any errors on my part.
"but you have no interest in exploring issues once you decide you understand them." I explore by reading the counter arguments, finding the errors in them, and remaining with my present scientifically minded viewpoints absent any good reasons presented to the contrary.
" As such, I'm giving you one last chance to consider the reason I'm telling you where you are wrong" You are wrong in attempting to treat the word "actually" in isolation.
The word "actually" is an adverb.
ad·verb a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc. (e.g., gently, quite, then, there ).
It makes no sense to focus on an adverb in isolation. Adverbs are modifiers of something else.
There is no point in stating that actually things cause things to be actually. That is just babble. It means nothing of any value. At that point one is just burbling words like a toddler.
Actually ***what***? What is it that your adverb is modifying? How is it modifying? What ordered relationship is being described?
Aquinas, to his credit, explains it clearly. Actually hot causes actually hot.
This is not an issue of me failing to grasp your point. It is an issue of you having no sound point for me to grasp. I grasp clearly the words involved and how to make some sort of sense of them.
" (hint: the reason is not because I'm the one who's wrong)." Actually, yes, you being wrong is very much at the core of your problem here.
" If you are unable to stop repeating the same errors that have been pointed out to you over and over," You have yet to validly point out any supposed errors of mine.
" then I'm not going to respond to you any more." How unfortunate that you may be incapable of learning your fundamental errors.
" I don't say that like I expect it will hurt your feelings or something like that - your opinion doesn't matter to me - but your intentional nonsense is a useless distraction from actual discussion of the First Way, which you frankly have yet to do." I corrected Haines's notation errors and neither he or anybody else has been able to show how my corrections are themselves in error, so my corrections to the mistakes of the OP stand.
Alrighty. You're incapable of admitting that you've been proven wrong countless times in this thread (you admitting you are wrong is not required proof that you are wrong). You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality). Emphasis does not mean isolation, and since his example was showing the difference between actuality and potential, my emphasis was on the "actually" in "actually hot". You lie and say otherwise.
Inability to recognize how pathetically wrong you are, coupled with outright lying and a blind dogmatic devotion to scientism, makes you not only impossible to reason with, but frankly boring as well. Your broken records of nonsense aren't amusing any longer. I'm done with you.
" Alrighty. You're incapable of admitting that you've been proven wrong countless times in this thread" Aristotle was wrong, making Aquinas wrong and Haines wrong and you wrong.
You are in a bubble. In the modern world no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated.
Only a tiny sect of individuals still cling to the bankrupt arguments of Aquinas. Learning will occur when you get out of that tiny sect, get out of your bubble, and open your mind to modern thought.
" (you admitting you are wrong is not required proof that you are wrong)." I have provided a logical proof that Haines is wrong and Aquinas is wrong. Neither you or Haines has done anything to counter my proof so my proof of the errors of the OP stands. See March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
" You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality)." Which means a general state of existence which when applied consistently reduces the First Way to babble (see above references)
" Emphasis does not mean isolation," You can't have it both ways. Aquinas gives the clear example of the same sort of actuality being necessary to cause a particular sort of actuality. Aquinas makes sense up to that point, but his clarity in 2d leads to his self contradiction in the further argument.
If you don't like the notion of the same sort of actuality that Aquinas exemplified then you treat "actuality" in isolation which in turn leads to babble.
So, the first way is either self contradictory or it is babble, you may choose, but either way, it is erroneous and so is anybody who thinks it is not.
" and since his example was showing the difference between actuality and potential," "Actuality" of a consistent sort, actually hot makes actually hot. You want to get rid of the word "hot" to avoid the later self contradiction, but that turns 2d to babble.
" my emphasis was on the "actually" in "actually hot". You lie and say otherwise." You can't have it both ways. If you "emphasize" "actuality" then you ignore "hot" and turn 2d into babble. If you include "hot" then you get later self contradictions.
There is no linguistic middle ground where you get to straddle the fence to have your cake and eat it too. You are attempting to invent such a middle ground because both real linguistic alternatives lead to clear errors in the First Way.
" Inability to recognize how pathetically wrong you are, coupled with outright lying and a blind dogmatic devotion to"... Aristotelian Thomism, a long ago debunked set of propositions, is what you cling to, so very erroneously. Education will occur when you get out of your bubble, leave that tiny sect, and engage in modern thought.
" makes you not only impossible to reason with," Haines, you, and everybody here have provided no rational counter arguments to my notation of March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
" I'm done with you." More's the pity, for you.
Perhaps one day you will reach a tipping point of cognitive capacity such that you can put away the ancient errors of Aristotle and his derivatives such as Aquinas.
The rest of the world has long since moved on. Isn't it past time for you to move on as well?
>> "In the modern world no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated."
" Where? How? Don't just make wild claims, show us." First, your question is ambiguous as to subject.
As for the subject of a serious study of causality my favorite starting point is "Against Measurement" by J S Bell. http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/bell.pdf
Here is a commentary on Bell http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
Obviously, Thomist language and argumentation are absent from those papers. It would be like discussing demon possession in a medical research paper. Thomist language and argumentation have no place in any serious study of causality.
As for debunking Aristotle that was done by Newton who built upon Galileo. Work has continued with the advent of modern physics some 120 years ago. You can start with any modern university calculus based physics book to show how wrong Aristotle was.
As for me debunking the First Way I used notation and argumentation, restated in this series of posts. March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
The fact you even have to ask such a question shows you are in a tiny bubble, an unschooled sect, uneducated in the findings of an entire century up to this day. You are in some sort of cognitive time warp.
Aristotelian/Thomist causality is of interest only as a quaint historical study of how people long ago tried to make sense of the world and arrived at a variety of false notions. If you don't know that all I can suggest is you go get an education.
>> " Neither you or Haines has done anything to counter my proof so my proof of the errors of the OP stands."
" We have countered your proof - numerous times - so your proof stands defeated. Stop lying."
Please post the date and time of your counter notation regarding my notation of March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
Regarding the causality issue, quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong. If it doesn't directly relate to the First Way then don't quote it.
" Please look for the counter arguments yourself." I already have. They are all scattered bits and pieces that quickly fizzle. No theist has demonstrated the slightest capacity for a sustained, on subject, rational discourse in over 900 posts.
The "counter arguments" quickly devolve into theists doing nothing better than name calling about phantom points they imagine they have made.
I organized my counter arguments and even provided detailed commentary and keys to my notation. No theist has demonstrated the mental capacity to engage in a logical refutation of my organized exposure of the First Way as self contradictory, begging the question, false premise, ad hoc, false dichotomy, non sequitur, invalid logic and therefore unsound.
The First Way is a disastrous mess that has no place in any modern serious discussion of causality. Only a tiny sect in an uneducated time warp bubble cling to these erroneous notions.
" Regarding the causality issue, quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong." Read a medical research paper and quote the part that proves demon possession is wrong.
Demon possession and Thomist arguments are just medieval superstitions. No modern scientific paper even bothers to address such nonsense. Such medieval absurdities simply do not appear in modern works because they are utterly irrelevant to any serious modern study of the subject.
" If it doesn't directly relate to the First Way then don't quote it." The very language of the Aquinas is obsolete and irrelevant to any serious modern study of causality. The relevance is that the total absence of Thomist language and argumentation shows the utter irrelevancy of Aquinas.
" Me: "quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong"
Dusty: "I'd rather continue to bluff my way through this conversation""
SteveK "Quote the section in the physics paper that proves angels cannot dance on the head of a pin"
Me "No modern article bothers to discuss such absurdities. Angels dancing on the head of a pin are irrelevant to any modern physics discussion because angels dancing on the head of a pin is just an old superstition"
SteveK "See!!! Angels DO dance on the head of a pin, you lying bluffer!!!"
If you happen to read this, I stopped responding to Stardusty because he has displayed no ability to consider something outside of his own opinion, even if that opinion is wrong. You have said you agree with his take on the First Way, a take which I have stated was humiliating in how wrong it was due to not even addressing the point of the argument. Stardusty, as predicted, incorrectly claims no one has demonstrated him to be wrong at any point.
If you would like to find out why I say Stardusty is repeatedly embarrassing himself, let me know. One piece of the argument at a time, using the definitions I proposed, I will explain at length. Stardusty will try to leap in and claim that my definitions are blah blah blah or will inevitably lead to blah blah blah, but step by step, without jumping forward or skipping sections, we will learn if those objections are true. Once you have seen what the argument is actually saying - and it has nothing to do with being some sort of proto-physics argument - then I ask you to evaluate it fairly. If you still reject it, cool. If, by understanding it and still pointing out flaws you manage to make me discard it, even cooler. I don't like believing incorrect notions and like having them pointed out.
But to point out flaws, one has to understand what the argument is even talking about first, which is why Stardusty has yet to scratch the surface of showing it to be a bad argument, and I will happily demonstrate that fact if you agree to proceed.
Dusty: "no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated"
Dusty: "As for the subject of a serious study of causality my favorite starting point is "Against Measurement"
Me (referencing the claim in bold text): "quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong"
Dusty: "I'd rather continue to bluff my way through this conversation"
There are many old superstitions not mentioned in that paper. Key items relevant to a modern serious study of causality are mentioned. A vast array of ancient superstitions are not mentioned. The paper is a serious modern discussion of causality, not a direct rebuttal of myriad superstitions.
I am sorry you lack the education in this subject needed to have any appreciation for what Bell said or what his commenters say about his work.
" Nowhere in that paper have any errors of the First Way been demonstrated. You are posturing and bluffing. Maybe lying too. You've done it before."
This is perhaps a more accessible paper in that it discusses Bell and various subjects relevant to causality. http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
Per relativity causal influences propagate continually no faster than c. A schematic can be drawn showing the intersection of the forward light cone and backward light cone. Other ideas of causality come from the Copenhagen interpretation, the necessity of observation, and the so-called collapse of the waveform.
EPR proposed hidden variables to account for certain causes and effects, but Bell wrote an inequality that seems to rule out such hidden variables at c. Einstein chided "spooky action at a distance" but one interpretation of Bell is that some sort of causal influences might propagate faster than light. To discuss this further Bell introduced "beables".
Bell was particularly opposed to the notion of measurement, hence the title of one of his papers "Against Measurement".
These are the topics of serious discussion of causality. They show Aquinas to be wrong at every step.
Aquinas was wrong because he had no notion of relativity, quantum mechanics, c, the 2 slit experiment, light cones, or any of the experiments and mathematical formulations relevant to the serious study of causation.
These papers, and every such paper, show clearly that Aquinas did not have a clue and was wrong in his terminology and his analysis.
" If you would like to find out why I say Stardusty is repeatedly embarrassing himself, let me know. One piece of the argument at a time, using the definitions I proposed, I will explain at length."
What are you waiting for?
If you have some argument based your definitions why don't you just post it?
The OP posted his argument. I posted mine. Why are you keeping it under your hat?
Nowhere does the First Way say *anything* about what you just referenced. This is just more atheist posturing on your part - either that or you don't understand the argument. Which one is true I'm not exactly sure, but neither one looks good for you.
Steve: "Nowhere does the First Way say *anything* about what you just referenced."
Read the Bell paper more closely. It clearly disproves ideas like train car movement being caused by the engine or cold temperature causing water to freeze, thus the point of Aquinas' argument is, like, so totally wrong.
Stardusty: "What are you waiting for?"
The offer was to Cal. He has yet to agree to the definitions I proposed. I would offer it to you if you agreed to use the definitions I proposed, and to discuss it one step at a time with me rather than leaping all over the place predicting what you believe will be failures in the argument. Can you do those two things?
" I would offer it to you if you agreed to use the definitions I proposed, " I agree that those are the definitions you have for certain terms and that they seem to be very much what Aristotle or Aquinas would have defined them to be.
I do not agree that those definitions are entirely meaningful or a sound basis for a serious modern discussion of causality. Your definitions do seem to express the thinking of ancient and medieval times.
"and to discuss it one step at a time with me rather than leaping all over the place predicting what you believe will be failures in the argument." I tried to take a most basic first step with you but did not get far. Your definition of "act" or "actually" as a noun is particularly troubling. I could find no reference to this usage. "Actually" is an adverb. I tried to go one step at a time but you would not address the fact that you cannot have it both ways. What you call "emphasizing" one word is functionally ignoring its necessarily associated word.
" Can you do those two things?" Already tried. I have found that in discussing such things with theists I frequently encounter an individual who will make what he seems to think is an airtight argument, such that when I point out its many flaws his conclusion is that I either did not read it, or did not understand it, or I am lying about it, owing to the "obvious fact" that the argument is so utterly correct.
It does not seem to occur to this sort that I have a very great deal of experience and education on the subjects I am discussing and that I simply found errors in the argument.
So, can you prepare yourself mentally for having the errors in your argument decisively exposed?
Stardusty: "I agree that those are the definitions you have for certain terms and that they seem to be very much what Aristotle or Aquinas would have defined them to be."
Indeed. And that's my point. I want to analyze the argument as they presented it, based upon what they were getting at, and once their own thoughts are agreed upon, THEN critique it. It doesn't do the argument justice to critique it based upon things they aren't actually talking about. It's not a science argument, so judging it based upon current physics models is not necessarily appropriate.
Stardusty: "I do not agree that those definitions are entirely meaningful or a sound basis for a serious modern discussion of causality."
If I was going to have a scientific discussion of causality, I also would not use the First Way. One can speak of pretty much any topic without it being a scientific discussion, so there must be judgment involved as to whether science is appropriate to invoke.
Stardusty: "I tried to take a most basic first step with you but did not get far. Your definition of "act" or "actually" as a noun is particularly troubling."
"Actuality" is the noun form. "Actually" is an adverb, "actual" is used as an adjective. But they are forms of the same concept, much like "hot", "heated", "heat", etc. "In act" means something is actual, it has actuality, it is actually a given state rather than potentially that state.
Stardusty: "What you call "emphasizing" one word is functionally ignoring its necessarily associated word."
Not really. "Actually hot" in a discussion of actual vs potential would be emphasizing the adverb and using the "hot" as an example of a state. It would work equally well with any other state - actually alive, actually red, actually soft, actually tasty. The point is that it is actually the state in question, and not potentially that state. In a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is significant not because it is a ball, but because it is blue. Aquinas' example is significant not because it is hot, but because it is actually so, rather than potentially.
Stardusty: "I frequently encounter an individual who will make what he seems to think is an airtight argument, such that when I point out its many flaws his conclusion is that I either did not read it, or did not understand it, or I am lying about it, owing to the "obvious fact" that the argument is so utterly correct."
This could apply equally well to me, Cal, or yourself, so that's why I wanted to proceed a step at a time with Cal so that there is an agreed upon piece at a time being built upon. It does seem rather futile after this much time, but apparently I've got no life.
Stardusty: "So, can you prepare yourself mentally for having the errors in your argument decisively exposed?"
Over the years I've been disabused of many notions, but namely hardcore conservative political positions, an inerrant King James Bible, and young earth creationism. I single those out because I was emotionally invested in all three, but facts overrode my feelings.
I'm not at all emotionally invested in the First Way, I simply do not believe it has been refuted. So if you or Cal were to successfully refute it, thank you for helping me discard a poor argument. I just don't accept refutations that I don't believe are touching upon the point of the argument.
Legion, >> "If I was going to have a scientific discussion of causality, I also would not use the First Way. One can speak of pretty much any topic without it being a scientific discussion, so there must be judgment involved as to whether science is appropriate to invoke. "
Everyone knows this is true. Dusty's blunder reminds me of this article about Lawrence Krauss making a similar error in judgement. I quoted a snipped of the article below.
Dusty claims there's only one legitimate way to talk about causality, and that way is using scientific terms. This is demonstrably false.
"That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful."
"Actually hot" in a discussion of actual vs potential would be emphasizing the adverb and using the "hot" as an example of a state. It would work equally well with any other state - actually alive, actually red, actually soft, actually tasty. The point is that it is actually the state in question,"
Actually alive causes actually alive Actually red causes actually red Actually soft causes actually soft Actually tasty causes actually tasty Actually blue causes actually blue Actually hot causes actually hot
No, these do not "work equally well". Some make sense, some are gibberish. "Emphasizing" doesn't work because it ignores the associated words that render the statement either meaningful or alternatively gibberish.
" Aquinas' example is significant not because it is hot" You are exactly wrong. You could not be more wrong. The sort of actuality is critical to the meaningfulness of the sentence. Aquinas did not say "actually soft causes actually soft", because that is gibberish.
By "emphasizing" "actually", which is the word used by the OP in the example sentence, and then generalizing, you render that aspect of the First Way to be gibberish.
Stardusty: "You are exactly wrong. You could not be more wrong."
I'm exactly right. And the reason I'm exactly right is because that is what Aquinas was getting at.
You still don't understand what he is trying to point out - the difference between a thing's potentiality and a thing's actuality, as it relates to having causal power. The mechanical reason a match can cause wood to burn is indeed because the match is hot, as you say and as I agree, but his point is that a match has the potential to burn (and cause burning) but that potential is not enough to cause burning - it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning. Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning. Because the point is differentiating actual and potential as causal agents.
Your other examples are ridiculous only because that is not how English is spoken and because not everything is identical to heat in causal ability. Softness doesn't transmit like heat, but softness can have other effects - like a good night's sleep. A pillow that is potentially soft, but not actually soft, will likely not result in good sleep. Red does not "cause red", but no one will stop for a light that is potentially red but is actually green. Food is potentially tasty, but it won't cause me to eat it unless it is actually tasty.
That's the point of using heat as his example - the difference between actual and potential as it relates to causal power.
" You still don't understand what he is trying to point out" You don't understand the meaning of the words that are written.
*But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act.*
* 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.*
The full meaning of those 2 sentences taken in their entirety is clear. I understand their meaning because I am willing to read them in their entirety.
You insist on "emphasizing" one part of the sentence, thereby ignoring the full meaning of what was written by Aquinas, turning his originally reasonable observation into gibberish. But I somehow don't understand things because I do not accept your gibberish interpretation of a plainly reasonable observation.
"it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning." Yes, only a moving thing causes motion, clearly. You say it, but you seem unable to hold that thought in your mind beyond the end of the sentence.
" Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning." Even you are forced to use "actually" and "hot" together in order to form a meaningful sentence. You use all caps in an attempt to divert attention away from the word "hot" but you are forced to include the word "hot" else your sentence would be gibberish.
Try one of your words that "work equally well" **" Thus, something that is ACTUALLY soft - as opposed to POTENTIALLY soft - can cause soft."**
Nope, that doesn't work at all, it is just nonsense. "Emphasizing" doesn't work. Reading the entire sentence is required.
Clearly, you have a deep seated need to deny the obvious in order to avoid a later self contradiction. In that process of denial you render Aquinas gibberish.
" Your other examples are ridiculous only because that is not how English is spoken and because not everything is identical to heat in causal ability." Exactly. "Emphasizing" doesn't work.
You keep telling me what you think "Aquinas was getting at" but I can read what Aquinas was getting at because he gives us a clear example for the obvious purpose of explaining what he was getting at.
An example explains. Aquinas explained what he was getting at with his example. I am willing to take him at his word as he wrote it in his example that he chose. I am not willing to throw out key elements of his explanation, as you insist on doing, thus turning his carefully crafted example into gibberish.
" Dusty claims there's only one legitimate way to talk about causality, and that way is using scientific terms. This is demonstrably false.
"That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful."
Idiotic drivel. The question of the origin of existence, the origin of motion, the origin of cause is a question of fundamentals, the very most fundamental things there are. The "analogies" provided are stupid irrelevancies to a discussion of these fundamentals.
Cosmology immediately turns to fundamental physics. The very largest is dependent on the very smallest. Science is how we make progress learning about both.
Stardusty: "You don't understand the meaning of the words that are written."
Yes I do, which is why I'm trying repeatedly to get you to understand. It's not difficult, yet you keep missing the point of the argument.
"But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act"
Exactly. Only a thing in act (an actualized state, not a potential state) can cause change. That is indeed what Aquinas is trying to get across to you, and you're missing it.
* 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.*
Quite right. And as you say, "actually" without something to modify makes no sense, thus he uses an example of something that can be both a potential and actual state to make his point about only something in act (in an actualized state) being able to cause change. Much like, in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is noteworthy because it is blue, not because it is a ball, even though there has to be something that is blue in order to make the point since you can't have simply blue. It's very simple, I'm astounded you still can't understand it.
Stardusty: "The full meaning of those 2 sentences taken in their entirety is clear. I understand their meaning because I am willing to read them in their entirety."
The first sentence is completely accurate. The second is the exact opposite of accurate. You obviously are still missing the point. It's very simple - when you agree that Aquinas is comparing actual and potential states, as relating to their ability to cause change, you will have understood the purpose of the example. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
Stardusty: "You insist on "emphasizing" one part of the sentence, thereby ignoring the full meaning of what was written by Aquinas, turning his originally reasonable observation into gibberish."
And you insist on ignoring my explanations as to why I am emphasizing the "actually" over the "hot", because the "hot" is just an example of an actualized state being able to cause change, as opposed to a potential state which cannot cause change. What you call "gibberish" is the correct explanation that you are by all appearances incapable of comprehending, which is very curious since it's extremely simple.
Stardusty: "Yes, only a moving thing causes motion, clearly. You say it, but you seem unable to hold that thought in your mind beyond the end of the sentence."
The only person forgetting things is you - Aquinas says that only something in act (in an actualized state) can cause a potential to become actualized (change). He clearly makes the point that it has to be actualized as opposed to potential in order to cause change.
Stardusty: "Even you are forced to use "actually" and "hot" together in order to form a meaningful sentence."
It's fascinating that you think this is some sort of a point. Of course I can't use "actually" without something to be "actually" in order to give an example. That's how English works. However, in the phrase "actually hot", I most certainly can and should (if I want to be correct) emphasize the importance of the "actually" over the "hot", since that's obviously the point of the argument. Much like in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball has greater emphasis on "blue" than "ball". It is very simple. If the definition of "emphasis" is confusing you, look it up. ("Emphasis" is the noun form of "emphasize", by the way.)
Stardusty: "Thus, something that is ACTUALLY soft - as opposed to POTENTIALLY soft - can cause soft."
This is the problem when you don't accept the way languages work (no language god!!!). No one would say "soft causes soft" in any possible context (except you), as I have already explained at length in my previous post. Very interesting that you ignored my response to this nonsense. I can only think of one reason you would ignore it, and it doesn't reflect kindly on you.
Also, nowhere did Aquinas assert that only something in "state x" can cause "state x". Your hilarious "soft causing soft" gibberish is apparently some sort of mistaken understanding of what he was getting at.
Stardusty: "Exactly. "Emphasizing" doesn't work"
No, but rather "Exactly. My attempt at countering you was an embarrassing failure." You know why your attempt to counter was an embarrassing failure? Because emphasizing "actually" in "actually hot" is not a problem to anyone but you. Much like in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is significant not because it is a ball, but because it is blue. It's very simple.
Stardusty: "but I can read what Aquinas was getting at because he gives us a clear example for the obvious purpose of explaining what he was getting at."
If you can, you obviously have chosen to delay doing so, since you have yet to understand it.
Stardusty: "An example explains. Aquinas explained what he was getting at with his example. I am willing to take him at his word as he wrote it in his example that he chose. I am not willing to throw out key elements of his explanation, as you insist on doing, thus turning his carefully crafted example into gibberish."
Only the first two sentences here have any bearing on reality.
Legion of Logic said... " It's very simple - when you agree that Aquinas is comparing actual and potential states, as relating to their ability to cause change, you will have understood the purpose of the example." An actual state is meaningless without the reference to what sort of actual state is being exemplified. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
"Also, nowhere did Aquinas assert that only something in "state x" can cause "state x". " Wrong, he makes a statement of "only" as a principle and then an example of the principle. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
"Your hilarious "soft causing soft" gibberish is apparently some sort of mistaken understanding of what he was getting at." You are the one who made that mistake. If you disagree, you don't have a clue. "Not really. "Actually hot" in a discussion of actual vs potential would be emphasizing the adverb and using the "hot" as an example of a state. It would work equally well with any other state - actually alive, actually red, actually soft, actually tasty. April 12, 2017 7:24 AM"
You are the one who asserted all these other sorts of "actually" "would work equally well".
Now you call the application of your own words "gibberish". At last we agree.
Stardusty: "An actual state is meaningless without the reference to what sort of actual state is being exemplified."
Examples illustrate the point, but the concept can be discussed even not using an example. It's pretty simple. Actual states can cause change, potential states cannot. Look, no reference yet still true.
Stardusty: "Wrong, he makes a statement of "only" as a principle and then an example of the principle."
And the "only" is "only something in an actualized state can cause change", not "an effect can only be caused by something exhibiting the same trait as the effect". Red drinks cause me heartburn, that doesn't mean heartburn is a red drink. Bright lights cause blindness, that doesn't mean blindness is bright. The example demonstrates that actualized states, and not potential states, cause all change. It's very clear and very simple.
And we know that is the purpose of his example because the "thus" links the example to the prior sentence, which states that change is caused by something in an actualized state. He flat out says what he is providing an example of. So if your understanding of his example does not align with the sentence prior to the example, linked with a "thus", then you're simply wrong.
Thus, you're simply wrong.
Stardusty: "You are the one who made that mistake."
And yet I understand it and you don't.
Stardusty: "You are the one who asserted all these other sorts of "actually" "would work equally well"."
Indeed they do work. All of those things can cause change, so long as they are actualized and not potential, but not in the same way that heat does. Heat transfers, the others do not. Pretty simple stuff.
It is your application of them that is gibberish. Soft does not cause soft, particularly since soft isn't even a noun. Softness can cause other things, however, so softness as an actualized state is indeed capable as a causal agent, much like heat.
I have been away but I'm starting to read through where I last left off, so I'll just start commenting from there:
Grod: "... in his fantasies he misunderstands the situation as his understanding being superior because he has uncovered the flaws that "Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist" have failed to spot."
In the case of your modern day apologists it's more an exploring the curious inability to acknowledge obvious flaws.
The best explanation seems to be that apologists have moored their thinking to a set of false premises -- the existence of god, the truth of the bible, and the understanding of ancient thinkers -- instead of logic, consistency, a foundational philosophical approach, and skepticism (including intersubjectivity, empiricism, and a working understanding of biases).
So that's the real situation. Apologists just start off on the wrong foot, and instead of acknowledging all the indications that they've been misled they invent reasons why these indications should be ignored.
Legion: "There is a huge difference between having a potential state - which is how I would word it - and BEING IN a potential state, which would make it an actualized state. Also, why point out medieval? Does medieval = wrong to you?"
I don't think you've through this through.
I asked you upthread, "How can a thing be a thing if it has no state?"
I didn't see an answer to that question.
And I think if you start to really try and figure that one out, I think you'll start to see some problems with the language you're using.
Here's an old writer's adage about language: If you find that you can't make your terms clear, then it's usually an indication that you're not thinking clearly.
In other words -- don't blame the words when it's the thoughts that are muddled.
Legion: "This is one of the key principles for analyzing essentially ordered causal series later - the mechanical method of cause/effect transference is irrelevant in the context of the argument. Potential states cannot cause change - that's the lesson to take away, because it's one of the core premises for later."
Why isn't it relevant that the method for causing a motionless thing to move requires that the thing causing the moving must be moving itself?
If it's not relevant to the argument, then why does the argument tell us that only a (mechanically) moving thing can cause another thing to move?
If it's not relevant, how can one ever determine that something causes another thing to move? In other words, if things just move (no mechanical explanation need apply), then the premise that all things are moved by another is undemonstrated, and the argument fails on itself right there.
Is it possible that the First Mover is a relic because of these and other failings?
Legion: "Your inability to grasp the concept - which is actually a very simple concept - does not make the terminology bad. You simply don't have a clue and don't want to learn."
You are using muddled terms to describe muddled concepts. Our pointing out these problems to you is not a case of our not having a clue or wanting to learn. You have that exactly wrong.
Legion: "It's not a physics argument. And since you don't have a clue what the argument is saying, you can't even rate what bearing science would have on it."
If you think the argument can't be analyzed using precise scientific terms you are talking about a (meaningless) metaphysical argument.
Woo is not a persuasive argument, and thus you are conceding that you are convinced because you are gullible.
Went back and found the section about states. I said "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice."
Your response to that: "So, to avoid confusion, potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has no state? How can a thing be a thing if it has no state? This terminology doesn't seem to make sense."
Using water as an example again, let's say there was no ice anywhere on the planet. All of it had melted. Even if there is no ice, ice still remains a potential state of water. Water still has the intrinsic capacity to become ice given the right conditions. And ice remains a potential state of water until the ice is realized as an actualized state, then it is no longer potential.
Another definition of "in act" or "actualized" could be something like "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is realized, currently in effect, etc, as opposed to potential states, which are intrinsic capacities within a thing that are not realized, not currently in effect, etc.
Cal: "Why isn't it relevant that the method for causing a motionless thing to move requires that the thing causing the moving must be moving itself?
If it's not relevant to the argument, then why does the argument tell us that only a (mechanically) moving thing can cause another thing to move?"
Because here is the relevant line: ""But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act"
That is to say, it is not possible that a thing change (as Aquinas describes it, motion is a potential state becoming actualized, i.e. change) except by a cause that is actualized, and not potential. The wood, for example, will burn if heat is applied to it. A match can make the wood burn, but only if the match is in an actualized state (a burning match) that can produce such an effect. The mere fact that burning is a potential state of a match is not enough to produce burning wood - the match has to be in an actualized state of burning to cause burning. Aquinas is trying to point out the difference between a thing's potential and actual states, as it relates to having causal power.
Taking Stardusty's soft(ness) example, softness doesn't cause softness, but it can cause other things - a good night's sleep, injury prevention from falling, mockery at my unmasculine frame, and so on. That's another type of change that Aristotle and Aquinas would include, which is why we have argued that mechanical motion is not the point, but rather the question and answer "Is a thing's potential state capable of causing change? No."
Cal: "If you think the argument can't be analyzed using precise scientific terms you are talking about a (meaningless) metaphysical argument."
How about this:
Wife: "Honey, do you love me?"
Husband: "Central dopamine pathways are mediating my partner preference behavior, while vasopressin in my ventral pallidum and oxytocin in my nucleus accumbens and paraventricular hypothalamic nucleus mediate my partner preference and attachment behaviors. Furthermore, I experience increased activity in the foci in my media insula and part of my anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with feelings of euphoria."
Yay science, or yay sleeping on the couch?
It's not that the argument can't be analyzed with input from science, but rather that one should recognize when it is appropriate to invoke science. If the discussion is not a scientific discussion, then perhaps science isn't appropriate. It doesn't have to be scientific in order to be true or useful. And I'd be happy to rate the First Way as it relates to science, but first I'd want everyone on the same page as to what the argument is even saying. I don't believe anything in science has disproved anything in the First Way. Science sure hasn't proven that Aquinas is wrong that something being able to potentially burn is not enough to cause burning, for example. Even though potential states and actualized states are not a scientific concept exactly, it's still true.
" Examples illustrate the point, but the concept can be discussed even not using an example. It's pretty simple. Actual states can cause change, potential states cannot. Look, no reference yet still true." Real things really do stuff, unreal things don't do stuff. Oh look, what a profound truth statement!
You have reduced Aquinas to pointless statements of the sort "stuff makes stuff do stuff".
An example is meant to be applicable to the principle. If the example is not applicable to the principle it is not an example of the principle.
Principle: *But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act*
Example of the principle: * 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.*
Example applied to the principle: *But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to an actually burning or hot thing, unless it is by a thing that is burning in act*
That makes sense. That follows our ordinary observations. That is a meaningful observation.
Despite your claim that other sorts of act "would work equally well" they don't, rather, becoming "gibberish" by your own estimation.
Stardusty: "You are the one who asserted all these other sorts of "actually" "would work equally well"."
" Indeed they do work. All of those things can cause change," Soft causes soft when "soft" is used as the sort of actuality instead of "hot" or any unspecified sort of actually, you now claim. How absurd.
" It is your application of them that is gibberish. Soft does not cause soft, " Now you change your mind, again. You are very confused.
" A match can make the wood burn, but only if the match is in an actualized state (a burning match) that can produce such an effect." You finally get it!!!
" the match has to be in an actualized state of burning to cause burning." Bravo!!!
You finally get it, "actually" by itself is pointless. The sort of actual state must be specified.
What you probably don't realize is that at this point the word "actually" becomes redundant, since once we say X is in state Y there is no new information added by saying X is actually in state Y. If X were not actually in state Y then X simply would not be in state Y.
But let's not worry too much about the redundancy of "actually" in an analytical statement, and just focus on your conceptual breakthrough here.
" the match has to be in an actualized state of burning to cause burning." Yessssss!!! An actualized state of wet, or an actualized state of being in a box, or an actualized state of being broken, or any other actualized state is not sufficient.
Merely stating an act causes act is meaningless. The sort of actualized state, or more simply, the sort of state, is critical to what is caused.
Stardusty: "Real things really do stuff, unreal things don't do stuff. Oh look, what a profound truth statement!"
Actualized things do stuff, potential things do not do stuff. This is the closest to understanding that you have yet to achieve, so well done. Your "profound truth statement" reference is based upon not only your failure to take into consideration the time period - and thus philosophical points of view - in which it was written, but also your ignorance as to what the argument is getting at. Aquinas lays this out for a reason, not to be profound, but to be illustrative later.
Stardusty: "Despite your claim that other sorts of act "would work equally well" they don't, rather, becoming "gibberish" by your own estimation."
The gibberish occurs when you, for no reason whatsoever, try to pretend that the adjective soft causing the adjective soft is the same idea as the noun heat causing the noun heat. No intelligent person would say this. Softness - the noun form, which you have yet to use for some reason - cannot cause cause softness, because softness as an mechanical trait is not a form of radiation like heat. However, much like heat, softness can cause effects as I have listed and you have ignored. It's a very simple concept, so I'm curious why you're struggling so much with it.
Stardusty: "You finally get it!!!...Bravo!...focus on your conceptual breakthrough here."
What's funny here is this is what we have been saying for months now. Repeatedly, we have said that something simply being actual is not sufficient to cause any effect - the effect has to follow from the cause, but the cause has to be actual rather than potential. We have been saying this for a very long time now. Very interesting that you are ignoring that inconvenient fact and calling this a breakthrough.
Stardusty: "What you probably don't realize is that at this point the word "actually" becomes redundant, since once we say X is in state Y there is no new information added by saying X is actually in state Y. If X were not actually in state Y then X simply would not be in state Y."
Aquinas is trying to highlight the differences between actual states and potential states as it relates to causal power. It would sort of defeat the purpose to drop one of the things you are trying to differentiate.
Stardusty: "An actualized state of wet, or an actualized state of being in a box, or an actualized state of being broken, or any other actualized state is not sufficient."
Indeed, as we have been saying all along. But Aquinas is not trying to say what sort of actualized state causes burning - he is trying to point out that something that can potentially burn will not cause burning, but that it must be actually burning. Emphasis on being actualized as opposed to potential. As we have been saying for months now.
Stardusty: "Merely stating an act causes act is meaningless."
Not when you are making the point that something has to be actualized, and not potential, in order to cause an effect. As Aquinas is doing. The wood on fire is an example of this.
Think of it this way. You are fixating on the burning. A match can potentially burn and actually burn. Which of those will cause wood to burn? The latter. What is the difference between the latter and the former? The latter's burning is actualized, the former's is only potential. That is the point Aquinas is making, and he has a reason for doing so that is shown later on.
Stardusty: "The sort of actualized state, or more simply, the sort of state, is critical to what is caused."
Yes, which is why we have been saying it all along. For example, my post on March 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM: " 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."
We have never said that "actualized" is the only requirement to cause an effect. But whatever is required to cause an effect, that cause must be actualized and not potential. That's the point of this line of the First Way, and the example of the burning wood.
Legion: "Look, Stardusty, I know you are psychologically incapable of admitting that a position you hold is wrong, such as the majority of what you have written regarding the First Way."
Psychological projection! Drink!
Legion: "I offered Cal for me and him to agree upon set definitions and then proceeding line by line to see what Aquinas is actually saying."
Yes. And I think this exercise will help you understand better why the First Way falls apart if an attempt is made to clarify its terms. This is not a feature for an argument; it is a bug.
Legion: "The reason I keep telling you about your errors is to hopefully get you to stop making them, but you have no interest in exploring issues once you decide you understand them. As such, I'm giving you one last chance to consider the reason I'm telling you where you are wrong (hint: the reason is not because I'm the one who's wrong)."
If I had a nickel for every time an apologist told me I was wrong about the faults found in the First Way without actually demonstrating what those faults are...
Legion: " If you are unable to stop repeating the same errors that have been pointed out to you over and over, then I'm not going to respond to you any more. I don't say that like I expect it will hurt your feelings or something like that - your opinion doesn't matter to me - but your intentional nonsense is a useless distraction from actual discussion of the First Way, which you frankly have yet to do."
This is false; no apologist here has shown a meaningful response to the faults pointed out in the First Way. Mostly, it's just a baseless assertion that the real reason is found in some unspecified elsewhere. This is what all frauds and hucksters have to resort to when their claims are closely examined.
Legion: "You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality). Emphasis does not mean isolation, and since his example was showing the difference between actuality and potential, my emphasis was on the "actually" in "actually hot". You lie and say otherwise."
So, you think we should read "actually hot" as "actuality hot." ? How does this refute the criticism pointed out umpteen times -- that in the First Way, a commonsense reading is that only a moving thing causes a thing without motion to move, only a hot thing causes something else to become hot, etc. ?
In your definitions, I think you should work on clarifying what you mean by "actually," if we are to understand that term as "actuality."
Legion: "If you would like to find out why I say Stardusty is repeatedly embarrassing himself, let me know. One piece of the argument at a time, using the definitions I proposed, I will explain at length."
I'm not holding my breath. You've had lots and lots and lots of comments to provide a detailed response, and you haven't offered one yet. Instead you seem to project the failings of the First Way (and the inability of apologists to grasp these failings, and to form coherent thoughts) onto its critics.
Look over all these comments and try to find what you consider the best apologist comment here -- the exemplar of what apologists keep on falsely claiming they have provided in response to the detailed criticisms offered by SD (and sometimes elaborated by me).
Or do you agree that no apologist has done that here yet, and that you are now willing to do so? If so, proceed.
SD: "What are you waiting for?" Legion: "The offer was to Cal. He has yet to agree to the definitions I proposed. I would offer it to you if you agreed to use the definitions I proposed, and to discuss it one step at a time with me rather than leaping all over the place predicting what you believe will be failures in the argument."
I didn't realize you were waiting for my approval of your definitions before proceeding; I thought you were doing your best to clarify the muddled terms used in the argument. I pointed out where the definitions you provided still seemed muddled, and haven't heard back from you on that, so I assumed you were still working out how to tinker with those terms before you started to lay out your refutations of the criticisms offered.
Legion: "If I was going to have a scientific discussion of causality, I also would not use the First Way. One can speak of pretty much any topic without it being a scientific discussion, so there must be judgment involved as to whether science is appropriate to invoke."
Science is the rigorous examination of claims using precise and meaningful descriptions and terms. If you think the First Way cannot withstand that process, then I think you should realize that it is a bad argument.
Science doesn't make the First Way a bad argument. But it sure does uncover that fact, now, doesn't it?
Legion: "The mechanical reason a match can cause wood to burn is indeed because the match is hot, as you say and as I agree, but his point is that a match has the potential to burn (and cause burning) but that potential is not enough to cause burning - it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning. Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning. Because the point is differentiating actual and potential as causal agents."
Exactly. Which is why the conclusion of an unmoved mover violates the premise you express so well above.
Earlier apologists had denied that First Way argues that a thing need be moving in order to cause another thing to move; above you seem to be realizing that this is not the case.
Stardusty: "Thus, something that is ACTUALLY soft - as opposed to POTENTIALLY soft - can cause soft." Legion: "This is the problem when you don't accept the way languages work (no language god!!!). No one would say "soft causes soft" in any possible context (except you), as I have already explained at length in my previous post. Very interesting that you ignored my response to this nonsense. I can only think of one reason you would ignore it, and it doesn't reflect kindly on you."
Language works when its terms coherently describes recognizable things, concepts, and relationships.
Don't blame the problems exposed by examination of your terms on the terms you define; blame them on the concepts that are so muddled.
Legion: "The mechanical reason a match can cause wood to burn is indeed because the match is hot, as you say and as I agree, but his point is that a match has the potential to burn (and cause burning) but that potential is not enough to cause burning - it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning. Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning."
Legion: "Also, nowhere did Aquinas assert that only something in "state x" can cause "state x".
Legion: "Soft does not cause soft, particularly since soft isn't even a noun. "
Neither is "actually." But that didn't stop you from claiming earlier that it is.
The problem with the First Way isn't it's terms, per se. The problem with the First Way is that the only way it can convince the gullible is if it's terms aren't precisely and carefully defined.
No apologist here has demonstrated otherwise. Although Legion does deserve credit for at least starting to look more closely at the terms used in the argument.
" But Aquinas is not trying to say what sort of actualized state causes burning - " He said so right in the argument in his example!
So did you, just a few posts up, you finally got the fact that a burning match makes fire, took you long enough, dang, every boy scout knows that!
" it must be actually burning." Yesss!!! Bravo, again. Try to hold that thought, "it must be actually burning"
" Not when you are making the point that something has to be actualized, and not potential," Darn, you were doing so well there for a moment. Act causing act is a tautology.
You have reduced Aquinas to: "Nothing can cause state X except something that can cause state X"
" Think of it this way. You are fixating on the burning. A match can potentially burn and actually burn." False dichotomy. A match can also be actually wet, or broken, or whatever. It must be burning to cause burning.
" That is the point Aquinas is making, " You miss the point of the example entirely. Only the correct sort of state will cause a sort of change. Aquinas was not as simplistic as you irrationally insist upon being.
Stardusty: "The sort of actualized state, or more simply, the sort of state, is critical to what is caused."
" Yes, which is why we have been saying it all along. For example, my post on March 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM: " 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."" So keep that in mind, OK? The only reading that is not gibberish is "actually X causes actually X"
" We have never said that "actualized" is the only requirement to cause an effect." We who? Yes, that has also been specifically argued here.
" But whatever is required to cause an effect, that cause must be actualized and not potential. " And also be of the correct sort, such as hot to cause hot, and moving to cause moving, the two examples Aquinas provides.
Look, LoL, it is only two things to keep in mind, not some vast quantity. The cause must be in a state, AND that state must be the correct sort of state.
This is a logical AND. Both conditions must be satisfied. In a logical AND we cannot "emphasize" one input condition. Failing to examine and satisfy both requirements simultaneously is faulty reasoning.
Cal: "So, you think we should read "actually hot" as "actuality hot." ?
Stardusty is repeatedly saying stupid things like "soft causes soft", ignoring the basic rules of English that small children learn in school. He also doesn't know the definition of "emphasize". For example, in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is notable not because it is a ball, but because it is blue, therefore the emphasis is on "blue". In no definition of "emphasize" does it mean to remove other words around it. So when I say emphasize "actually" in "actually hot", that does not mean remove "hot", but rather that the point of the argument is highlighting the "actually" since it is showing the difference between actually x and potentially x.
I would not say "actuality hot" because actuality is a noun, not an adverb. Actually, actual, actuality, actualize, etc are all different forms of the same concept, but since all aren't nouns or adverbs, all aren't used the same. "Actually hot" in noun form would be "hot in actuality", but that's a lot bulkier.
Cal: "How does this refute the criticism pointed out umpteen times -- that in the First Way, a commonsense reading is that only a moving thing causes a thing without motion to move, only a hot thing causes something else to become hot, etc. ?"
In the sentence prior to the burning wood example, Aquinas says that in order for something to change, it must be changed by something already actualized, and then he gives the example of the wood. Now, if he was wanting to point out what you are saying the point is - that only a hot thing causes something else to become hot - he would have said so in the sentence prior, because the example sentence begins with "thus". But if that is what he is wanting to point out, that sentence makes no sense. Nor does the next line of thought, in which he continues to point out the difference between actual states and potential states.
Rather, his point is that something can cause burning only if it is in an actualized state. Something potentially on fire cannot cause burning, but rather has to be in an actualized state of being on fire in order to cause burning. He is trying to get the listener thinking about the causal power of actualized states, and the lack of causal power in potential states, for later in the argument. And as we have said all along, neither Aristotle nor Aquinas nor any of us here are trying to say that something being actualized is sufficient to cause any effect, so that is not a valid objection. Obviously the actualized state that causes burning must be something hot, but what he wants to highlight is the necessity of the cause being actualized in order to produce the effect.
Cal: "In your definitions, I think you should work on clarifying what you mean by "actually," if we are to understand that term as "actuality."
Actually is the adverb form of actuality, so the idea behind them is the same even if the usage is different due to not both being nouns. To make it a mirror of potentiality, I'll just do this:
Potentiality = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is not currently realized or in effect - water at room temperature is potentially ice, but not actually ice.
Actuality (including all forms of the word in their proper usage - noun, verb, adjective, adverb) = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is currently realized or in effect - water at freezing temperature is actually ice.
Between the two threads, there are around 1200 comments. I frankly don't care enough about this discussion to look through all of those.
Cal: "Science is the rigorous examination of claims using precise and meaningful descriptions and terms. If you think the First Way cannot withstand that process, then I think you should realize that it is a bad argument."
I have no problem with the First Way's premises being held up against scientific discoveries, so long as it is actually the First Ways' premises being scrutinized.
Cal: "Exactly. Which is why the conclusion..."
And this is precisely why I wanted the line by line approach. I'm not leaping all over the place again. Line by line.
Cal: "Don't blame the problems exposed by examination of your terms on the terms you define; blame them on the concepts that are so muddled."
Are you agreeing that "soft causes soft" is a meaningful objection? Really?
Cal: "?????????"
Yes. That is what we have been trying to get you guys to understand all along. The reason I referred to it as the First Strawman is because it is not a premise of the First Way - it is the understanding you guys are trying to wrench from the burning wood example, but that's not what the burning wood is an example of.
Cal: "Neither is "actually." But that didn't stop you from claiming earlier that it is."
Stardusty: "He said so right in the argument in his example!"
Do you honestly not understand there's a difference in emphasis and motivation between "Only a hot thing can cause burning" and "Only something that is actually hot, as opposed to potentially hot, can cause burning"? I mean, is it truly so difficult for you to understand something so simple?
The reason it's so important is because what you immediately try to do with it. Under your example, Aquinas is trying to say what sort of actualized state will result in effect x. Thus, if that's the point of his argument, then that rule must hold true throughout. So, you run with "movement is caused by moving things" and run to the conclusion waving your arms at it.
Under what Aquinas is actually getting at, he is saying that in order to produce an effect, the cause must be actualized and not potential. Even if something can potentially be on fire, that is not enough to cause wood to burn - it must be actually on fire. To condense the point of the example: "Only actualized states can cause change. Potential states cannot."
Stardusty: So did you, just a few posts up, you finally got the fact that a burning match makes, took you long enough, dang, every boy scout knows that!"
*facepalm* It must be nice, just ignoring the things people say that disprove your point. I provided an example from March 20 in which I say that no one has claimed being in an actualized state is sufficient to generate any effect. This is how you prefer to operate, isn't it? Just ignore select things?
Stardusty: "Act causing act is a tautology."
I'm not saying "act causes act", and neither is Aquinas. Rather, all change is caused by something in act (synonymous with "in an actualized state"). Point being, actualized states have causal power, potential states do not.
Stardusty: "Nothing can cause state X except something that can cause state X"
Nothing can cause state x except by something that is actualized. Obviously the actualized state has to be capable of producing state x, but that doesn't mean that the actualized state must itself be state x.
Stardusty: "Stardusty: "So keep that in mind, OK? The only reading that is not gibberish is "actually X causes actually X"
Red drinks cause me heartburn. Heartburn is not a red drink. Softness causes good sleep. Good sleep is not soft. Bright lights cause blindness. Blindness is not bright. Bad breath causes the consumption of Tic Tacs. Tic tacs are not bad breath.
Now if, instead of making up our own strawman arguments, we go with what Aquinas is actually getting at:
If the drink is potentially red, but not actually red, I won't get heartburn. If the pillow is potentially soft, but not actually soft, I won't get good sleep. If a light is potentially bright, but not actually bright, I won't get blinded. If breath is potentially bad, but not actually bad, I won't eat a Tic Tac.
Actualized states have causal power. Potential states do not. That is the point.
Stardusty: "We who? Yes, that has also been specifically argued here."
Quote?
Stardusty: "And also be of the correct sort"
BOOM! Breakthrough! While it is not a premise of the argument nor the point of the example, it is nonetheless true. And it is so, so different than "in order to cause state x, the cause must exhibit the effect it is causing". "Of the correct sort" is universally true, "must exhibit the effect it is causing" is not.
Thus, if we were to replace the state "hot" with "soft", we could no longer say the gibberish "soft causes soft" like we (with proper word usage) could with heat, but we know that softness can cause other things. But much like with heat, softness only has causal power if it is actualized softness, or actualized heat, rather than potential softness or potential heat.
Stardusty: "Failing to examine and satisfy both requirements simultaneously is faulty reasoning."
And on that note, since we have entered the era of the mega posts again, this evening I will begin the line-by-line analysis. We'll see where the faulty reasoning lies.
Legion: "Soft does not cause soft, particularly since soft isn't even a noun. " Me: "Neither is "actually." But that didn't stop you from claiming earlier that it is." Legion: "Quote where I said "actually causes actually"
Okay.
Earlier, you claimed that actually isn't an adverb (which it is), but that it should be read as a noun (which it is not). Here you go:
Legion (earlier): "You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality)."
I was just pointing out that it's ironic that you'd take SD a line of reasoning that tries to dismiss SD's approach of arbitrarily using something as a noun when that is not the an accepted use, but reserving that practice for yourself.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Chris,
No, they don't believe in the concept of essentially ordered causes or pure act. Act as a concept has been explained multiple times through direct explanation and links, and these very clear explanations are described as vague. So if the very clear explanations of the concept of "in act" aren't understood, how in the world could they fathom "pure act"?
Chris,
Also keep in mind that if you were adventurous to Google Stardusty Psyche and read some of the conversations he gets involved in, regardless of the topic, you would learn that everyone notices his lack of reading comprehension, his inability to admit when he is wrong, and his desire to nitpick what he can in an attempt to score points since he can't do so on the actual subject material.
That Cal cheers such foolishness shows the mindset of anti-theists.
Lol. I see your point.
An essentially ordered series is basically about instrumental causality. How is that not "up to date" or "non-scientific"?
Hey, Chris, now that you're back, why don't you respond to the question i asked before you left:
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
Cal to Chris:
"Can you re-state your response because the other 10 that I've gotten from the others over these 800 comments aren't meaningful enough. I'd like to hear what you have to say so that I might dismiss it publicly as say it's *obviously* muddled, uninformed, vague or not very meaningful. This repeating posturing allows me to appear like I understand the argument very well, when in reality I have no idea what the hell Aquinas is saying. lolz"
It would be trivial for me to grab a "best" response from the skeptical responses here.
Why do you suppose it's so hard for apologists to select one?
Do you suppose that it's because apologists can only pretend that they've offered cogent rebuttals somewhere else, and they can't do it where it would actually do some good -- right there in a combox, under their fingertips?
Cracker Jack City. And so many mayors.
grod: “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…”
What are you even talking about? The First Way tries to argue that the entirety of all things moving in the universe are ultimately moved by a god. That is the entire point of the First Way. This run-away-from-the-actual-argument “defense” of the First Way by the apologists here is one of the most comical things I have witnessed online.
grod: “…much less that "reality must be a per accidens causal series”… “
Really? Huh. From the OP: “It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.”
That’s pretty much as per accidens as it gets for you guys, now, isn’t it? Unless you maybe think that things moving other things aren’t part of reality? Wouldn’t surprise me at this point, really.
grod: “…or that Aquinas set out to prove "per accidens causal series that cannot stretch infintely", which is *demonstrably* false.””
You really should try to write more clearly — which which is demonstrably false? Does the which refer to what you think Aquinas did not set out to prove, or does the the which refer to demonstrating that the events that we observe in reality cannot stretch infinitely?
If the which refers to the first one (what Aquinas sets out to prove), then you agree with me that Aquinas doesn’t demonstrate that reality cannot stretch infinitely — he simply declares it by definition, making his determination that therefore there must be a first mover circular. As I wrote:
“And why does the argument tell us that REALITY must be a per accidens causal series that CANNOT STRETCH INFINITELY? Because, as 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.”
Circular.
Instead, if the which above refers to the second one (the determination that infinite regress of causal events is impossible), then it appears you agree with me that the argument fails to do this.
Either way, you appear to agree with me that Aquinas fails to demonstrate that the chain of motion of those things we observe (reality) cannot stretch on ad infinitum, and you also appear to agree with me that it is false that this infinite chain of events must have a termination can be demonstrated (without embracing circularity, anyway).
I think the objection of circularity doesn't stick. According to the argument, there must be a changeless changer because if there isn't, then we cannot account for the reality of change.
Chris: ".
I think the objection of circularity doesn't stick. According to the argument, there must be a changeless changer because if there isn't, then we cannot account for the reality of change."
That's nice.
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
This is the kind of stuff that blows up in apologists face because they reject being consistent, acting rationally, and thinking critically:
bmiller: "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,”
Stardusty: “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.”
Legion: “ 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.”
Stardusty: “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.”
I can’t stress enough how much easier everything becomes when you just try to be consistent, instead of building these ad hoc castles of sand that apologists insist on concocting, over and over and over.
Chris: "An essentially ordered series is basically about instrumental causality. How is that not "up to date" or "non-scientific"?
Because the only place that scientism allows metaphysics to inform is, ironically, with the declaration of scientism itself (self-defeating and hypocritical, I know). Adherents to scientism only accept "knowledge" that is derived from the scientific method. They can readily accept something like Newton's law of inertia because SCIENCE, but discussing causality as a concept and not an empirical study? Not so much. That's why they keep trying to twist the First Way into some sort of pseudo-Newtonian scientific statement, which it was never intended to be.
Incidentally, I will concede that Stardusty was finally correct at my expense. The key is indeed in the OP, I didn't read past what I thought was the beginning of the footnotes, so that is my error.
Perhaps Stardusty can use this post, study it, and figure out how to admit when he is wrong. It's a skill he desperately needs.
Legion of Logic said...
" Also keep in mind that if you were adventurous to Google Stardusty Psyche and read some of the conversations he gets involved in, regardless of the topic, you would learn that everyone notices his lack of reading comprehension,"
Indeed, that does seem to be a consensus from many, often just before I am banned :-)
" his inability to admit when he is wrong,"
If somebody could use logical discourse to demonstrate an error of mine I would consider it a personal favor, since all the benefit is to me in that case, having learned something by the good graces of one who took the time to teach me.
Unfortunately for me, that virtually never happens.
" and his desire to nitpick what he can in an attempt to score points since he can't do so on the actual subject material."
The subject here is the OP.
I have refocused on the OP time and again. No theist here has demonstrated the slightest capacity to sustain a detailed, on topic, in depth, logical discourse on the rational merits.
All theists here quickly disburse to side quips, ad hominems, or simply go silent.
March 21, 2017 1:56 PM
@grodrigues,
"What Aquinas explicitly sets out to prove is that *essentially ordered* causal series cannot proceed to infinity,"
Me:
"That was merciful.
But since this has been explained since the "Aswedenism" days I don't expect it to stick."
Wow, it didn't stick for even a day. Amazing.
Chris said...
" An essentially ordered series is basically about instrumental causality. How is that not "up to date" or "non-scientific"?
You need do no more research than a simple wiki reference to begin to answer your own question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29
I always recommend J. S. Bell's "Against Measurement" as another good starting point.
No serious modern discussion of causality employs the language of Aristotle or Aquinas.
To understand the very large we must immediately investigate the very small. That is why cosmology is dependent upon fundamental physics.
The First Way is an attempt to solve the ancient riddle of the origin of existence. It fails miserably. Nobody has solved this riddle. But to begin to seriously consider it in the 21st century one must discard the ancient and medieval misconceptions of Aristotle and Aquinas and instead turn to modern physics.
March 21, 2017 2:06 PM
Chris said...
" I think the objection of circularity doesn't stick. According to the argument, there must be a changeless changer because if there isn't, then we cannot account for the reality of change."
That is the circularity, also known as begging the question.
U -> ~I
~I -> U
That is literally in the First Way.
U (premise in 4a)
U→~I (4a→4)
~I→U (begging the question fallacy of 5, since U was a premise in 4a)
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
Begging the question is just one of the problems that make the First Way a logically invalid argument. Se my posts of March 12 for more complete enumerations of the many defects of Aquinas.
March 21, 2017 6:03 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" Adherents to scientism only accept "knowledge" that is derived from the scientific method. They can readily accept something like Newton's law of inertia"
Then I must not be a scientismist because I deny any such thing as Newton's "law" of inertia or anything else.
Newton was not prescriptive, only approximately descriptive. Newton produced no "laws", he only provided better approximations of truth than had ever been derived previously. Perhaps nobody was more keenly aware of his limitations than Newton himself.
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
Isaac Newton
March 21, 2017 6:4
8 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" Incidentally, I will concede that Stardusty was finally correct at my expense. The key is indeed in the OP, I didn't read past what I thought was the beginning of the footnotes, so that is my error.
Perhaps Stardusty can use this post, study it, and figure out how to admit when he is wrong. It's a skill he desperately needs."
You, like all others here, have yet to provide any example of any error on my part.
I pointed out my own error about the typographically omitted tilde.
You certainly have provide no rational argumentation to counter my clear and often repeated refutations of the OP.
March 21, 2017 6:51 PM
SD: "You certainly have provide no rational argumentation to counter my clear and often repeated refutations of the OP."
I have demolished your arguments at pretty much every turn, as have multiple others here. The problem is that you are incapable of seeing it, or simply don't want to. Fun fact: We don't have to get you to agree with us in order for us to be right.
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "You certainly have provide no rational argumentation to counter my clear and often repeated refutations of the OP."
" I have demolished your arguments at pretty much every turn,"
Where?
All you do is offer a retort on a couple things, and when I show that to be wrong you quit.
You have never engaged in a sustained dialog on any point.
Point 1
2d of the OP posits that only a moving thing can cause a non-moving thing to move. You have never countered that fact in any consistent way. I have heard some vague notions proposed of what "act" means, and read a couple of provided links that are nothing but long winded fluff, all absent an actual definition of "act".
No person here has provided a clear definition of "act" that can be consistently applied throughout the entire argument. Others have provided "act=existent", but that fails as I show here:
March 12, 2017 2:42 PM
Nor can you or anybody else come up with a counter example, that is, an example of a thing that was moved by a non-moving thing. Nor can you come up with any examples of any sort of change that does not require a literal motion, a change of position of a physical object.
Since my analysis of 2d stands unrefuted demonstrating the self contradiction of the First Way is simple, as I did
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
Thus the First Way fails by self contradiction.
Point 2
The premise of 4a leads to the conclusion of 4. The conclusion of 4 leads to the conclusion of 5. But the conclusion of 5 is the premise in 4a! This is obvious begging the question and you have done nothing to counter this
U -> ~I (4a therefore 4)
~I -> U (4 therefore 5)
This is obvious begging the question. You have done nothing to counter the fact that Aquinas fails by begging the question.
Point 3
The notation of the OP stops at U. Hines doesn't even attempt to make a logical link to God. The Five Ways are asserted proofs of God, G O D. Yet the OP stops short of even asserting the personal understanding of God (G), or the Existence of God (E).
These steps are critical to the argument Aquinas is attempting, an argument for G O D. That is why Aquinas included 5a, because without it, there is no argument for G O D, and thus his Ways become pointless as theological proofs.
U -> G (missing from notation, false assertion by counter example)
G -> E (missing from Aquinas, ad hoc, false dichotomy, non-sequitur)
Legion, not you or anybody here has done any valid and sound rational argumentation to demonstrate my supposed errors in
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
You make a few vague attempts and then fizzle. If you cannot handle a sustained, on-topic, rational, focused, exchange on all 3 points, I would think perhaps you or somebody would be able to put up some such sequence of rationale for at least 1 of the points, but thus far none has been presented in over 800 comments.
Aquinas fails, I have logically proved this obvious fact time and again, you have made no substantial counter arguments, thus Aquinas remains failed.
March 21, 2017 9:35 PM
@bmiller:
"Wow, it didn't stick for even a day. Amazing."
Indeed. I even thought it a small mercy when Mr. Metzger said that he would leave me to choke on my own words...
Legion: "I have demolished your arguments at pretty much every turn, as have multiple others here."
On this page your comments above are:
2 off-topic comments directed to Chris.
1 admission that you had not read the OP, and mistook Legion's use of the OP's notation as somehow confusing the topic;
1 gloating assessment that you are doing some kind of demolishing of Legion's arguments (refutations, really).
In apologetics land, does that somehow qualify as demolishing?
> "Aquinas fails"
In your opinion.
> "I have logically proved this obvious fact time and again"
You've proven some other argument fails. Nice work.
> "you have made no substantial counter arguments"
The counter arguments all show that you're beating up a strawman.
The remedy is to accept the multitude of corrections being offered and deal with THAT argument. Since you cannot be bothered with that task, we cannot be bothered to help you any more than we already have.
SD: "Aquinas fails"
SteveK: "In your opinion."
Nope. In the objective ways in which arguments fail. By being circular, unsound, equivocating, and being ad hoc. That's the top of my head, but those have been described, and no one has rebutted these refutations -- only claimed to have in some vague, unspecified way.
SD: "I have logically proved this obvious fact time and again"
Stevek: "You've proven some other argument fails. Nice work."
The rebuttals have been used the OP as the source. If you think there is a different First Way somewhere you should let VR and the writer of the article of the OP references know, per you, that they are referencing the wrong argument.
stevek: "The counter arguments all show that you're beating up a strawman."
I agree that SD is beating up the First Way. But the First Way is what it is.
stevek: "The remedy is to accept the multitude of corrections being offered and deal with THAT argument. Since you cannot be bothered with that task, we cannot be bothered to help you any more than we already have."
If you think that the First Way is in need of many corrections then you agree with Stardusty and me that the arguments conclusions are easily refuted by dint of the argument being circular, unsound, equivocating and being ad hoc. I'm not sure how this can be corrected, although I gather that hasn't stopped generations of apologists from recognizing these problems and giving it a crack.
Cal,
Apparently in Atheist Fantasy Land, ignoring the scores of posts in which I've demolished the weak attempts to refute the First Way, and emphasizing a few lines farther down in the OP that I missed, is proof that I have not demolished the actual (and failed) attempts to refute the First Way.
As Atheist Fantasy Land bears no resemblance to reality, I can only laugh. Yet again.
SD,
I have refuted most of those points multiple times. I'll do so yet again, with the exception of one.
Point 1: "2d of the OP posits that only a moving thing can cause a non-moving thing to move."
That is not even remotely what 2d posits. The actual wording of 2d is "But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act." There has been nothing remotely vague about our defining "in act" - to be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. You are lying when you claim we have been vague. As such, 2d posits that it is not possible for a potential to be realized, unless it is by something already in a realized state. Your interpretation is baseless, and your objection has been refuted yet again. Your March 12 post does nothing to help you.
"Nor can you or anybody else come up with a counter example, that is, an example of a thing that was moved by a non-moving thing."
If you can't even grasp the meaning of "in act", "potency", "motion", and the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series, then there is absolutely no point in getting into this one - pure act, a thing's nature, etc. It would be like a young-earth creationist making the following argument: "If evolution was true, there wouldn't still be monkeys. There are still monkeys, ergo evolution is false." What good is going into genetics if they can't even grasp the concept of common descent? I would agree, though, that something made of the changeable matter and energy of the universe can't qualify as the first mover, since they can undergo change caused by other things. Quite telling, that one. Once you understand these things, and can tell me what the argument actually means, then we can discuss how the first mover does not violate the premises of the argument.
Point 2: "The premise of 4a leads to the conclusion of 4. The conclusion of 4 leads to the conclusion of 5. But the conclusion of 5 is the premise in 4a!"
The first three premises demonstrate an essentially ordered causal series, in which the agents of change are operating simultaneously. In doing so, 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 again: If there is an essentially ordered series, which Aquinas demonstrates, then it REQUIRES a first mover. You can only object to this if you deny the concept of an essentially ordered causal series.
Point 3: "The notation of the OP stops at U. Hines doesn't even attempt to make a logical link to God."
See [13] and [14]. Also as mentioned multiple times, the argument is aimed at Christian apologists, not obstinate hyper-skeptics.
For future reference, you should really stop lying and say we haven't addressed your arguments, when we have demonstrably done so at length.
"....an essentially ordered series is one where there is a relation of instrumental
dependence, in which members in that series would not be able to do or to actualise anything apart from the causal series of earlier members (which, in the final analysis, would also be derived). A causal series of this nature would, for want of a better word, be 'rootless', in that it would have no metaphysical foundation upon which to become extant. ....Even if (say) the universe was eternal, and had no beginning, it certainly does not preclude the possibility of a first member, the existence of which is metaphysically necessary- not to mention metaphysically (as opposed to temporally) prior- for the existence of such a universe." - Scott Buchanan
That strikes me as a pretty clear definition.
Legion: "That is not even remotely what 2d posits. The actual wording of 2d is "But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act." There has been nothing remotely vague about our defining "in act" - to be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. "
So, this is what you call demolishing.
An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move. As support, I give you a) reality, and b) the steadfast refusal of apologists to provide an example of a motionless (existing) thing causing another motionless thing to move (despite repeating that they could, or have, etc.)
So, if what you say were true, the first premise fails because it is unsound. (Do you understand that much? Do you acknowledge that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument? Seriously, do you accept that? Because it seems like just don't.)
The interpretation that Stardusty gave was a) commonsensical, given the examples that Aquinas provided, and b) an attempt to make the premise somehow sound.
So, you haven't "demolished" anything. You've simply stipulated that your preferred interpretation of the words should prevail, at the cost of spiting yourself with an unsound premise.
Score none, apologists!
Legion: "There has been nothing remotely vague about our defining "in act" - to be "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. " "
Then it appears you are too daft to understand how the term "in act" is equivocation. "In act" is entirely vague, as it means two things in the argument. (Hint: that's what equivocating means.)
In act can mean: to (actually) exist.
AND, in act can mean a thing in a state of motion.
So, In Act = two things: existing, and existing in a state.
That's equivocation, and it's the definition of vague. For further evidence, just see the vast confusion over the term in apologetics land, and the fact that the term has been abandoned (centuries and centuries ago) by those working in the physical sciences. Because it's hopelessly muddled. (Which means: vague).
So, this is what I meant when I've asked, over and over, for any of you to refer back to your supposed rebuttals. Because, whenever we revisit them, we see how hopelessly inadequate they are to the refutations previously offered.
And that's all they could be -- the responses could just be inadequate, for reasons that I have just repeated. But combine that with the repeated misrepresentations and dishonesty on display from the apologists here they become something more.
Sad.
"....an essentially ordered series is one where there is a relation of instrumental
dependence, in which members in that series would not be able to do or to actualise anything apart from the causal series of earlier members (which, in the final analysis, would also be derived). A causal series of this nature would, for want of a better word, be 'rootless', in that it would have no metaphysical foundation upon which to become extant. ....Even if (say) the universe was eternal, and had no beginning, it certainly does not preclude the possibility of a first member, the existence of which is metaphysically necessary- not to mention metaphysically (as opposed to temporally) prior- for the existence of such a universe." - Scott Buchanan
Chris: "That strikes me as a pretty clear definition."
That's nice:
Hey, Chris, now that you're back, why don't you respond to the question i asked before you left:
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
Legion: "Once you understand these things, and can tell me what the argument actually means, then we can discuss how the first mover does not violate the premises of the argument."
This has been one of the dumber refrains from apologists here, one that I haven't bothered to point out, but as it keeps on popping up I'll just say it: critics can't tell you what any particular bad argument means, because a bad argument doesn't mean anything.
Capiche?
Legion: "If you can't even grasp the meaning of "in act", "potency", "motion", and the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series, then there is absolutely no point in getting into this one - pure act, a thing's nature, etc."
There is a point in clarifying terms, and being precise. If terms defy attempts at clarification, then they shouldn't be used in arguments. This is pretty simple stuff.
Btw, motion has a modern definition that is more precise than the one used in the First Way. Swapping out the apologists suggestion of "change" for "motion" only makes the argument odder, and Aquinas's examples stranger.
Legion: "It would be like a young-earth creationist making the following argument: "If evolution was true, there wouldn't still be monkeys. There are still monkeys, ergo evolution is false." "
Nope.
The misunderstanding above can be easily fixed by pointing out that the term evolution (in this context) means descent from common ancestry. On the other hand, if one accepts that to be in act should be interpreted as to "be in an actualized state," this DOES NOT FIX the problems pointed out in the First Way -- the problems of the argument being sound, equivocation, circularity, and being ad hoc.
"Things are not themselves, without being, unless they are not, thus fire," is a bad argument. Declaring that by "Things" in the prior "argument" you should understand the word to mean everything at once, and nothing in particular, I have not made the argument any better.
Demolished indeed.
>> "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move."
The argument doesn't try to sort out what kind of actual being can accomplish the task, it only states that it must be caused by an actual being.
>> "You've simply stipulated that your preferred interpretation of the words should prevail, at the cost of spiting yourself with an unsound premise."
Gee, speaking of simply stipulating...on what basis are you claiming the premise quoted below isn't true? I've not seen an example of it ever being shown to be false. Actual things are always involved.
"But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act."
Cal: "So, this is what you call demolishing."
Yes, because what SD claims to be the correct interpretation of 2d is blatantly incorrect.
Cal: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move"
And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever. Stop trying to turn the First Way into a science discussion. I've already covered this ridiculous "objection". Obviously Aquinas didn't believe anyone to be idiotic enough to try and twist his argument into saying that any existing thing can result in any effect.
Cal: "So, if what you say were true, the first premise fails because it is unsound. (Do you understand that much? Do you acknowledge that an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument? Seriously, do you accept that? Because it seems like just don't.)"
Neither of you has yet to demonstrate an unsound premise. Neither of you is very good at this, so I'm curious why you do it.
Cal: "The interpretation that Stardusty gave was a) commonsensical, given the examples that Aquinas provided, and b) an attempt to make the premise somehow sound."
No, it was an embarrassing misunderstanding that has provided much comedic effect for over a thousand posts now. That you cheer his ignorance on is icing on the cake.
Cal: "In act can mean: to (actually) exist. AND, in act can mean a thing in a state of motion."
Wow.
Motion in the argument is "the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality". So, something that is not potential but exists, is in act. Something that could exist but does not, is potential. How in the world is such a simple concept so difficult to understand?
Cal: "the fact that the term has been abandoned (centuries and centuries ago) by those working in the physical sciences."
Holy hell, the First Way is not a scientific argument, nor is it a pseudo-scientific argument. This is hilariously unbelievable. Scientism is such a brain rot.
Cal: "So, this is what I meant when I've asked, over and over, for any of you to refer back to your supposed rebuttals. Because, whenever we revisit them, we see how hopelessly inadequate they are to the refutations previously offered."
You guys can't even understand the argument, let alone defend your pathetic attempts at refuting it. I've wiped my behind with your little refutations, and you still think they smell like flowers.
Cal: " critics can't tell you what any particular bad argument means, because a bad argument doesn't mean anything. Capiche?"
Critics have to understand the argument before they can criticize it.
Capiche?
Cal: "Btw, motion has a modern definition that is more precise than the one used in the First Way."
That's because Aquinas is not talking about motion in the modern sense. Good golly gee whiz.
Cal: "The misunderstanding above can be easily fixed by pointing out that the term evolution (in this context) means descent from common ancestry."
I said what would be the point of going into genetics to prove evolution if they could not grasp the concept of common descent. So, to use what I actually wrote, your response to someone that couldn't grasp the concept of common descent, is to tell them that evolution means common descent?
Cal: "Things are not themselves, without being, unless they are not, thus fire," is a bad argument. Declaring that by "Things" in the prior "argument" you should understand the word to mean everything at once, and nothing in particular, I have not made the argument any better."
Even with a copy of the First Way open, I can't even begin to get where you could even jokingly twist this gibberish out of it.
Demolished, indeed.
Me: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move"
Legion: "And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever."
False.
From this thread:
Stardusty: "actual motion is caused by something in actual motion"
Stevek: No. Think of a train. The cars are not the cause of the motion, the engine is.
Stardusty:"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality
(actual motion is caused by something in actual motion, which is plainly true in our common experience. Aquinas is not saying something stupid here, he is stating the obvious in an attempt to make a thorough argument)”
bmiller: "No, this is only saying that something actually existing (not something potentially existing or nothing at all) has to be responsible for the change."
And hey, here's you, saying what you just claimed no one EVER said. Does that make you a liar? I suppose it does.
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot."
Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
Wow indeed.
Why such contortions from the apologists here?
Oh, oh, I know!
Because when you equivocate (a fancy word for using weasel words), and your cherished argument is examined with some precision and revealed to be a mess, you realize that the argument won't hold up.
So you'll insist on vague words and muddled concepts, you'll find yourself denying the obvious and backtracking, because your greatest desire is to continue the charade that you are somehow in possession of valuable knowledge.
Sad.
Cal, Cal, Cal.
You really don't understand much of anything, do you?
The First Way argument is not - I repeat, is not - a scientific argument. It is not describing mechanical means of the relationship between cause and effect. What it IS, is a description of the concept of causality in an essentially ordered series, as well as an explanation of the difference between act and potency - which themselves are general concepts and not scientific terms, so don't even descend into that nonsense again.
When Aristotle and Aquinas speak of act and potency, they are saying that only something in act can cause change - as opposed to a potential thing, which does not [yet] exist. The point of doing this is NOT as an explanation of HOW something causes change, it is an explanation of how an essentially ordered causal series functions. So I repeat yet again - NO ONE is saying that the mere existence of a thing enables it to cause any effect. What we are saying is that causal power depends upon being in act instead of potential, because the whole point of the argument is how the causal series functions - which is what leads to the first mover.
You and SD are so hung up on trying to force the First Way into being a scientific description that you haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the argument. And as usual, when the delusion of intellectual superiority is demolished, the atheist retreats into accusations of lying, despite the only lying occurring being from the atheists.
Sad.
>> "NO ONE is saying that the mere existence of a thing enables it to cause any effect."
Yep. Cal is on drugs so this won't sink in. He doesn't listen and modify his statements when his errors are repeatedly pointed out.
Sad.
"You and SD are so hung up on trying to force the First Way into being a scientific description that you haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the argument."
I cannot wait for them to come back and insist, in true ironic self-refuting style, that scientific descriptions are the only real and meaningful descriptions. Science!
Legion: "The First Way argument is not - I repeat, is not - a scientific argument."
WTF is a "scientific" argument? Arguments are just arguments. Do you mean that the real things that Aquinas mentions -- fire, and rods -- aren't meant to be real things that can be observed? If so, you seem to know better than Aquinas, who felt it appropriate to include these real things in his argument.
Legion: "It is not describing mechanical means of the relationship between cause and effect."
Agreed. But it does describe the relationship -- as in moving things cause things not moving to move, and hot things cause cold things to heat up, and moving hands cause rods to move. Agreed on no mechanical means, but cause and effect are actually described though the examples that Aquinas chose to use.
Legion? "What it IS, is a description of the concept of causality..."
A description of the concept of causality? Do you even hear the muddled weasel words you use? We describe real things. We define concepts. You're trying to have it both ways -- to make claims ABOUT reality while apparently forbidding anyone to test those claims IN reality. This isn't argument -- it's a hissy fit, thrown by a toddler.
Legion: "... in an essentially ordered series, as well as an explanation of the difference between act and potency - which themselves are general concepts and not scientific terms, so don't even descend into that nonsense again."
Agreed that act and potency are not scientific terms. But that doesn't mean that act and potency are words, and words have to mean something. So far, no one has been able to explain what these words mean in such a way as to avoid the problems we discover when we use clearer terms in the argument. When clarification disrupts an argument, you can be sure the argument rests on sand.
Legion: "When Aristotle and Aquinas speak of act and potency, they are saying that only something in act can cause change - as opposed to a potential thing, which does not [yet] exist."
As Stardusty has pointed out, replacing this meaning into the argument renders it into garbage. Here, I'll paste it for you so you can see it again:
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.
It's almost as if you haven't read and comprehended any of our prior posts, going over this in the same way, over and over and over.
Is this what you still call "demolishing?" Because I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Legion: "And as usual, when the delusion of intellectual superiority is demolished, the atheist retreats into accusations of lying, despite the only lying occurring being from the atheists."
Yeah, as if the skeptics here are the liars. Look at you, just a few comments earlier:
Me: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move"
Legion: "And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever."
Earlier, FROM THIS SAME THREAD:
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot."
Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
No one has claimed otherwise. Ever. Oh, except for you, and the other apologists here. Also, black is white, apparently, and down is up.
Apologetics is a kind of sickness. You guys need help.
Cal: "WTF is a "scientific" argument?"
*facepalm*
Cal: "But it does describe the relationship -- as in moving things cause things not moving to move, and hot things cause cold things to heat up, and moving hands cause rods to move."
No. No, no no. Aquinas is describing an essentially ordered causal series. In such a series, a potential is brought into actuality (this transition is called "motion" in the argument) by something else. If that agent of change is also a potential state being realized, then its ability to cause change is entirely derived from whatever changed it, and so on. Those are the concepts. You and SD come running and crying and trying to inject the mechanical means by which these concepts operate, but those means are utterly irrelevant to the argument. The examples Aquinas gives illustrate the concepts - wood is potentially burning, but will not do so unless acted upon by something else, which is fire. A staff (agent of change) moves a rock (change), but its ability to change the rock is entirely derived from the hand moving the staff (functional first mover in the series).
Those are the points Aquinas and Aristotle were making. The mechanical means by which something in act causes change are as relevant to the argument as my knowledge of biochemistry is required to feel happiness - not at all.
Cal: "A description of the concept of causality? Do you even hear the muddled weasel words you use?"
The only possible way you could make this objection in good faith would be if you don't know what a concept is. Google its definition, maybe read up on some examples, then come back to me. If you know what a concept is, then you are lying when you make this accusation. There is nothing vague about discussing the concept of causality. Children can do it, as I proved with my 10 year old daughter. Why can't you?
Cal: "You're trying to have it both ways -- to make claims ABOUT reality while apparently forbidding anyone to test those claims IN reality."
I wouldn't mind you and SD attempting to test the claim if you were actually, you know, testing the claim. Neither of you could successfully paraphrase the argument to me right now, so how can you test anything about it?
Cal: "As Stardusty has pointed out, replacing this meaning into the argument renders it into garbage. Here, I'll paste it for you so you can see it again"
'Kay.
"But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in existence.[10]"
No problem here. A thing is able to change something else only if it is actualized and not a potential.
"c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to existence."
No problem here. Motion in the argument is the realization of a potential state, so this is essentially correct. The realization of a potential state brings that state into 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."
Quite right. It is not possible for a potential state to be realized unless that change is caused by something that itself is not potential. No problem here.
"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."
Quite right. A match, for example, cannot set fire to wood unless the match is itself already in an actualized state of burning. The wood can potentially burn, but will not unless acted upon by something else. No problem here.
"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."
Quite right. A flame cannot both exist and potentially exist. No problem here.
"i. That, in effect, which is existent burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold."
Quite right. No problem here.
So what was the problem with "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?
Cal: "It's almost as if you haven't read and comprehended any of our prior posts, going over this in the same way, over and over and over."
You got your pronouns backward. Flip them around to the correct position, and you would realize how badly your arguments have been demolished.
Cal: "No one has claimed otherwise. Ever. Oh, except for you, and the other apologists here. Also, black is white, apparently, and down is up."
I have already addressed this in my last round of replies to you. I'll copy/paste it here:
Legion: "So I repeat yet again - NO ONE is saying that the mere existence of a thing enables it to cause any effect. What we are saying is that causal power depends upon being in act instead of potential, because the whole point of the argument is how the causal series functions - which is what leads to the first mover."
I was not denying what we wrote - I was telling you WHY we wrote what we wrote, and the point we were making in writing it, in response to you and SD's ridiculous attempts to focus on the mechanical method of causal power, rather than the concepts actually being addressed. Attempting to take what we said out of context is deceitful. You are lying.
Scientism is a mental disorder apparently, but it does not excuse your continued lying. Fortunately you didn't delete your posts, so your lie is clearly displayed.
Legion: "Attempting to take what we said out of context is deceitful. You are lying."
In order for something to be taken out of context, the meaning would change if the surrounding context were incorporated. That is what it means to take something out of context.
How is it that I have taken what you said out of context?
Or are you going to run away from this request, like grod did when I requested the same from him?
----
Here's what I've discovered: whenever I take an apologists words, and show them the inconsistency, they refuse do accept the fact, or, sometimes, they see it, and then they accuse me of taking their words out of context.
Not EVER has an apologist shown how my exposing their inconsistency is actually an example of taking them out of context.
Cal: "How is it that I have taken what you said out of context?"
You know, I'm going to be charitable now that I've read over our last few exchanges a few times. Rather than accusing you of intentional deceit, which after this much time I feel fully justified in suspecting, I'm just going to assume that you simply have no idea what you're talking about. So for now, I will provisionally retract the contextual accusation.
My quote:
[FW] "The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized"
and others like it are because the argument is dealing with describing an essentially ordered causal series, and not explaining the mechanical method by which a cause brings about an effect. The reason we keep saying things like [FW] is not because we or Aristotle or Aquinas believe that existence is sufficient to bring about any effect, or that the First Way argues for this, but because you two are continuously failing to grasp what the argument is saying and keep trying to argue against the First Strawman (the relevant premise of the First Strawman is SD's interpretation of 2d, "Only a moving thing causes a non-moving thing to move"). We are saying [FW] IN RESPONSE to your errors, because 2d of the First Strawman is not even remotely what 2d of the First Way is saying. When we say things like [FW], we are trying to get you to understand what 2d is saying, so you can grasp the rest of the argument.
But you don't get that. Instead, you take [FW] and then try to claim that we are objecting to SD's First Strawman 2d on its terms - as in, we are attempting to explain what causes something not moving around to move around via [FW]. There's a big difference between us trying to explain what a certain premise of the argument is and is not saying, and us simply making a claim that you want to refute with:
[FS] "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move".
NO ONE has made the argument that mere existence is sufficient for a cause to simply result in any random effect, or that existence is a property that can generate movement. Again, you are hung up on the mechanical method by which a cause brings about an effect. You might conceivably have a point with [FS] and then calling me a liar for denying we claimed otherwise, if the argument was dealing with mechanical methods of a cause resulting in an effect. But the argument is NOT dealing with those. The examples of fire and the staff do indeed have a mechanical component as a real-life example, but that is not the point of the argument at all.
cont.
You object to the First Way regarding mechanical operation, and we respond with [FW] from two angles - one, the First Way is not dealing with mechanical operation, it is dealing with act, potency, and motion as part of an essentially ordered series - and with this being the case, 2d can be accurately summarized as [FW] and the First Way's examples demonstrate it to be so. And two, no one makes the claim that existence is a sufficient mechanical cause for an effect - not only because everyone knows that, but also because the argument isn't even talking about that in the first place. So when we say things like [FW], we are not talking about what you are talking about with [FS]. [FW] is not an attempt to counter [FS] or 2d of the First Strawman - [FW] is us waving our arms and hollering that the argument is over here where we are at, not over there in the fields of straw where you guys are at.
Cal Metzger said...
stevek: "The remedy is to accept the multitude of corrections being offered and deal with THAT argument. Since you cannot be bothered with that task, we cannot be bothered to help you any more than we already have."
" If you think that the First Way is in need of many corrections then you agree with Stardusty and me that the arguments conclusions are easily refuted by dint of the argument being circular, unsound, equivocating and being ad hoc. I'm not sure how this can be corrected,"
Of course, the words of Aquinas cannot be corrected in the sense that anybody can change what he wrote.
Aquinas wrote a great many errors. Those errors will always remain the errors of Aquinas because we cannot go back to medieval times to give Aquinas a chance to correct his many mistakes.
But, apologists have cleaned up some of his more glaring errors and come out with modified versions, such as the Kalam.
SteveK wants it every which way. He wants to claim Aquinas was correct, and that I am wrong in pointing out the errors of Aquinas, and that modifications to Aquinas have been made, and that folks like me should concentrate on those modified versions, and just stop pointing out how wrong Aquinas was because Aquinas was completely correct and that is why he had to be modified so we could ignore all his correct errors and just concentrate on the modified versions that no longer have his original errors that were in his works that were all completely correct in the first place!
You are a real idiot for not understanding this in over 800 posts!
March 22, 2017 1:04 PM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
SD Point 1: "2d of the OP posits that only a moving thing can cause a non-moving thing to move."
" That is not even remotely what 2d posits. "
Of course it does, and the example that follows explains this to you clearly. I am sorry you did not read the plain descriptive language with any depth of understanding.
" "in act" is to be in an actualized state. I've said this probably dozens of times in the two threads, let alone how many times the others have said it. You are lying when you claim we have been vague."
Not only is that vague it is circular and meaningless.
"act=actualized state"
"act=state of being actualized"
"act=state of act"
You are speaking in gibberish.
"Nor can you or anybody else come up with a counter example, that is, an example of a thing that was moved by a non-moving thing."
" If you can't even grasp the meaning of "in act", "potency","
Those are meaningless terms from antiquity that have no relevance to any modern serious discussion of causality.
" and the difference between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series,"
Again, those ancient notions are irrelevant to any serious modern discussion of causality.
"we can discuss how the first mover does not violate the premises of the argument."
I have shown clearly how Aquinas does contradict himself. You have failed to read with understanding the plain text of 2d and the example that explains it.
Point 2: "The premise of 4a leads to the conclusion of 4. The conclusion of 4 leads to the conclusion of 5. But the conclusion of 5 is the premise in 4a!"
" The first three premises demonstrate an essentially ordered causal series,"
Irellavant. 4a introduces U as the reason for ~I. Then 5 uses ~I as the reason for U. If you do not see the blatant circularity you have a vision problem.
" A paint brush with an infinitely long handle will not paint anything unless wielded by a painter."
??? So what?
" So again: If there is an essentially ordered series, which Aquinas demonstrates, then it REQUIRES a first mover."
Not if "I" is the case. If "I" is the case then "~U" is the case.
Aquinas wrote
U -> ~I
~I -> U
One could just as well write
I -> ~U
~U -> I
Justification:
An infinitely ordered series REQUIRES the absence of a first mover.
In truth both arguments are circular and have no rational merit. Neither and infinite regress nor a first mover can be shown by logic to be superior to the other. Thus the riddle of the origin of existence remains unsolved.
" You can only object to this if you deny the concept of an essentially ordered causal series."
Ok, done.
Point 3: "The notation of the OP stops at U. Hines doesn't even attempt to make a logical link to God."
" See [13] and [14]. Also as mentioned multiple times, the argument is aimed at Christian apologists, not obstinate hyper-skeptics."
How absurd. If a particular small audience agrees then the argument is sound. Really? That is the best you can do?
Clearly, there is no logical connection to get from U to G, or from G to E. This Aquinas fails at this critical step. Haines obviously recognizes this logical failure so he stopped at U.
" For future reference, you should really stop lying and say we haven't addressed your arguments, "
You have not addressed my arguments in any meaningful way. Your attempt at point 3 was particularly vapid. Your attempt at point 1 fails to provide any meaningful definition of "act" and fails to account for the explanation Aquinas provides right in the argument. Your attempt at point 2 shows how you do not understand circularity.
March 22, 2017 1:05 PM
teveK said...
>> "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move."
" The argument doesn't try to sort out what kind of actual being can accomplish the task, it only states that it must be caused by an actual being."
Then the First way becomes meaningless babble. If any old sort of act can reduce any old sort of potential to any old sort of act then there is no rational merit to the argument.
Aquinas becomes "things make things do things".
Aquinas becomes childish slobbering in your meaning of "act".
March 22, 2017 5:41 PM
Legion of Logic said...
Cal: "An actual state, as in, merely existing (a rock, in a state of rest), is patently NOT enough to cause a motionless thing to move"
" And no one has claimed otherwise. Ever. "
Uhm, yes, and frequently. You did not say this, rather, you only offer a circular "definition" of "act=actualized state", which is meaningless for slightly different reasons
"Stop trying to turn the First Way into a science discussion. "
OMG! Really? Well, yes, I suppose I see your point. If one applies science to the First Way it becomes absurd nonsense immediately, so you would wish to avoid that, I suppose.
However, an argument from motion is necessarily a physics argument, and physics is a part of science, so the First Way is necessarily scientifically wrong.
March 22, 2017 6:07 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" The First Way argument is not - I repeat, is not - a scientific argument. "
At last we agree, at least in the sense of a valid scientific argument. Any argument from motion would have to be a valid scientific argument to be of any merit, but the First Way isn't, so it isn't.
March 23, 2017 7:10 AM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" So what was the problem with "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?"
The problem is you are equivocating.
Mere existence renders the first way as meaningless babble.
To make the First Way even have meaningful sentences you must apply specificity to the kind of existence, what class of existence is actually existing.
To apply that specificity one then gets that only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to move to being hot.
Mere existence is not sufficient. Having any old state is not sufficient. Only a particular sort of state will do.
Thus, only a moving thing causes an apparently non-moving thing to move.
March 23, 2017 4:07 PM
SD: "Of course it does, and the example that follows explains this to you clearly."
No it doesn't, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The examples obviously demonstrate the causal relationship in an essentially ordered series - the mechanical method of casual transference is irrelevant. Whether the guy holding the staff moved it with his hand or moved it with a robot or moved it with cosmic mind powers, the example still holds true in that the staff's ability to move the rock is not derived from itself, but from change being acted upon it by the first mover of the series. The point is demonstrating the relationship between act, potency, and motion (change) within an essentially ordered series.
And rather than keep typing these mega posts, I'm not moving on until you get what the point of 2d is. Once you get that, I'll address the rest of your nonsense. In the context of the First Way argument - you know, what we're talking about -
What is an essentially ordered series?
What does it mean to be "in act"?
What does it mean to be "potential"?
What does "motion" mean?
>> "SteveK wants it every which way."
Dusty, I'm not asking you to accept a corrected *argument*. I'm asking you to accept our corrections to your ongoing mistakes so we can discuss the actual argument (the original). You never do that. You keep refuting strawman after strawman after strawman.
>> "Then the First way becomes meaningless babble. If any old sort of act can reduce any old sort of potential to any old sort of act then there is no rational merit to the argument."
Huh?? My comment was intended to point out that the argument doesn't examine all the various *particular* kinds of things that can (or cannot) produce a *particular* kind of change. Can a ping-pong ball cause a boulder to move? The argument doesn't examine this. The argument, however, DOES examine/discuss different kinds of things at a higher level, as anyone who can read will know.
Generally speaking, the argument BEGINS with a certain kind of actual thing that we observe (a thing that can change) and ENDS with the conclusion that there MUST be another kind of thing (one that cannot change).
>> "Aquinas becomes "things make things do things". Aquinas becomes childish slobbering in your meaning of "act"."
To your child-like mind, I suppose it does do that.
>> "Mere existence is not sufficient. Having any old state is not sufficient. Only a particular sort of state will do."
True, and the argument proves this out. The argument says, in general, not any old thing can cause the change we observe. You incorrectly think the argument drills down to a level that it clearly does not do. We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring our corrections. You're in love with the strawman you've created that you can bear the thought of getting rid of it.
Legion of Logic said...
SD: "Of course it does, and the example that follows explains this to you clearly."
" No it doesn't, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The examples obviously demonstrate the causal relationship in an essentially ordered series "
Right, the motion of the causal object is essential to the motion of the effected object. In truth they affect each other in a mutual cause and effect temporal process, but I am speaking in your medieval vernacular just for the sake of discussion.
"- the mechanical method of casual transference is irrelevant."
OK, all change is the result of a physical motion, and only a moving object can impart motion on a stationary object, the exact mechanical linkage can vary.
" Whether the guy holding the staff moved it with his hand or moved it with a robot"...
... motion was caused by a moving object, indeed.
" or moved it with cosmic mind powers,"
Pure woo.
" the example still holds true in that the staff's ability to move the rock is not derived from itself,"
Indeed, only a moving hand can move the staff. Once the staff is moving then it can move the rock. Only a moving thing causes motion, you are correct.
" but from change being acted upon it by the first mover of the series."
The series is arbitrary and in fact the notion of a first mover is irrational and is never observed.
The hand is not the start of the motion. The heart is beating to pump the blood to allow the muscles to contract. Food must move into the digestive system for the heart to beat. The food must be moved to the mouth. The plants must move up out of the ground to become food. The sunlight must move to the Earth to grow the plants.
And on and on and on to infinity.
I -> ~U
An infinetly ordered series REQUIRES the absence of a first mover.
March 24, 2017 6:53 AM
Legion of Logic said...
"The point is demonstrating the relationship between act, potency, and motion (change) within an essentially ordered series."
Ancient language employed in medieval times with no modern usefulness in any serious discussion of causality. I only employ that vernacular as a father speaks in the vocabulary of a babbling child for the sake of some rudimentary communication.
" And rather than keep typing these mega posts, I'm not moving on until you get what the point of 2d is. "
Ok, I get 2d, so you can move on.
" What is an essentially ordered series?"
A nonsense term in modern discussions of causality. It is an ancient notion from pre-science that makes some attempt ant understanding causality.
" What does it mean to be "in act"?"
Act is a circular term with no argumentative value. A thing is in act when it is in a state of actuality, which is a babble definition. Because it is such a generalized term it leads to pointless sentences when applied in the First Way. Act only takes on meaning by the example Aquinas provides, which is that of specificity.
"Act=actually a particular sort of state, as opposed to potentially in that particular sort of state"
This deffinition is provided in the example Aquinas provides and makes sense from our ordinary level of observation. An actually hot thing makes a potentially hot thing actually hot.
Heat is motion. You do know that, don't you? Clearly Aquinas did not mean to say that any old thing can make any old thing do any old thing. Only a moving thing can make a stationary thing move.
" What does it mean to be "potential"?"
Nothing in any modern discussion of causality. Again, it is ancient terminology to be used only when lowering one's self to that level for the sake of discussion. At the level of ordinary human perception there is an idea that certain objects are capable of doing certain things but not capable of doing other things, and so the notion of "potential" is assigned to objects for what they are perceived to be able to become.
" What does "motion" mean?"
Motion is relative. But at our ordinary level of perception we can define a reference coordinate system and detect that objects move from on position to another position. This is a very useful approximation of the true nature of things.
Sometimes motion is said to mean change. But all change of all sorts requires motion.
March 24, 2017 6:53 AM
The mirror metaphor below parallels the argument reasonably well in that it argues that there MUST exist TWO kinds of things in order to explain what is observed.
....
You observe a mirror with an image of a grizzly bear in the mirror. Knowing that images in mirrors are caused by some other thing, you follow the reflection only to find another mirror in which the bear is reflected yet again. You continue along a series of mirrors, finding an image of a bear at every step.
You wonder if an infinite series of mirrors can explain the observed image of a bear. You correctly conclude that it cannot. Why? Because mirrors do not produce images by themselves. ALL images in mirrors are caused by some other thing. An infinite series of mirrors cannot produce an image a bear. Since a bear is observed, a bear MUST exist.
SD: "Ok, I get 2d"
Let's see if this is true.
According to you, an essentially ordered series is "A nonsense term in modern discussions of causality. It is an ancient notion from pre-science that makes some attempt ant understanding causality."
So, you clearly have no idea what an essentially ordered series is.
According to you, act is "a circular term with no argumentative value". You say that " A thing is in act when it is in a state of actuality, which is a babble definition". You say that "Because it is such a generalized term it leads to pointless sentences when applied in the First Way."
So, you clearly have no idea what "in act" means, which means that you have no idea how to critique the argument since knowing what "in act" means is essential to understanding the argument. We are not discussing the mechanical methods by which a cause brings about an effect - we are discussing causes and effects, and why (not how) a cause is able to generate an effect.
According to you, potential is "Nothing in any modern discussion of causality", which of course translates to "nothing in any scientific discussion of causality". Okay, no one cares. I think you might at least understand what potential means, though, so that's one out of three so far.
For motion, you describe local motion and then get to the relevant part: "Sometimes motion is said to mean change. But all change of all sorts requires motion." You get it, then blow it with yet another retreat into mechanical description. That's like saying if every example of something that meets the definition of life (dog, tree, bacteria) is carbon-based, then the definition of life REQUIRES it to be carbon-based, which is of course not true. Whether or not examples share a trait, that does not mean that the trait DEFINES what the argument is about.
So, you have no idea what an essentially ordered causal series is. You have no idea what "in act" is. You dismiss "potential" as not useful but at least know what it means, I think. And you could conceivably understand what "motion" in the argument is (change of any kind), but you don't want to focus on the concept but rather the mechanical method of change, which is not the point of the argument. It's quite reasonable to conclude, then, that you don't have a clue what 2d is saying.
But at least we aren't starting from zero. Now then, to update the questions:
What is an essentially ordered causal series?
What does "in act" mean?
Why does the argument use "potential" as an important concept to understand?
What is the argument getting at when discussing motion (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?
SteveK said...
"I'm asking you to accept our corrections to your ongoing mistakes so we can discuss the actual argument (the original). You never do that."
Again and again I have referenced the OP, used the text from Haines, and used the notation of Haines.
>> "Then the First way becomes meaningless babble. If any old sort of act can reduce any old sort of potential to any old sort of act then there is no rational merit to the argument."
" Huh?? My comment was intended to point out that the argument doesn't examine all the various *particular* kinds of things that can (or cannot) produce a *particular* kind of change. "
Then 2d becomes a tautology.
*Nothing causes motion except things that can cause motion."
You again turn Aquinas into babble.
Aquinas actually does a fairly good job making some ordinary observations up to 2d. It is all quite reasonable, and as Aquinas cites at the outset, based on our senses. The explanation of 2d is reasonable, that a hot thing causes something else to get hot, or more generally, a moving thing causes something else to move. That's what we all observe every day.
The problem is that it leads to self contradiction later in his argument.
"Can a ping-pong ball cause a boulder to move?"
Yes, of course.
" The argument doesn't examine this. "
Sure it does, motion causes motion. Why would a ping pong ball and a boulder be an exception?
"The argument, however, DOES examine/discuss different kinds of things at a higher level, as anyone who can read will know."
This is statement so vague as to be useless.
" Generally speaking, the argument BEGINS with a certain kind of actual thing that we observe (a thing that can change) and ENDS with the conclusion that there MUST be another kind of thing (one that cannot change)."
Invalidly argued so the assertion of MUST has no actual value.
>> "Aquinas becomes "things make things do things". Aquinas becomes childish slobbering in your meaning of "act"."
" To your child-like mind, I suppose it does do that."
That is what the theists here do to Aquinas by denying the obvious principle that only a hot thing makes something hot, only a moving thing makes something move. Aquinas states it clearly and it makes sense at our ordinary level of perception.
March 24, 2017 7:57 AM
SteveK said...
>> "Mere existence is not sufficient. Having any old state is not sufficient. Only a particular sort of state will do."
" True, and the argument proves this out. "
I am glad you disagree with the many times various theists have contradicted your above point.
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot."
Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
Stardusty: "actual motion is caused by something in actual motion"
Stevek: No. Think of a train. The cars are not the cause of the motion, the engine is.
Stardusty:"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality
(actual motion is caused by something in actual motion, which is plainly true in our common experience. Aquinas is not saying something stupid here, he is stating the obvious in an attempt to make a thorough argument)”
bmiller: "No, this is only saying that something actually existing (not something potentially existing or nothing at all) has to be responsible for the change."
Stardusty: ...only a moving thing causes a stationary thing to move, only a hot thing causes a potentially hot thing to get hot."
Legion: "Wrong. The point is that only an already existing thing can cause a potential state to become actualized. Literal motion and burning are examples, not rules."
March 24, 2017 8:51 AM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
SP an essentially ordered series is "A nonsense term in modern discussions of causality. It is an ancient notion from pre-science that makes some attempt ant understanding causality.
" So, you clearly have no idea what an essentially ordered series is."
Actually, I explained it correctly. You provide no viable alternative.
SP act is "a circular term with no argumentative value". You say that " A thing is in act when it is in a state of actuality, which is a babble definition".
" So, you clearly have no idea what "in act" means,"
Again, my description of the term matches your past usage of it, and you offer no viable alternative.
SP potential is "Nothing in any modern discussion of causality", which of course translates to "nothing in any scientific discussion of causality".
"Okay, no one cares. "
That's one of your many problems with a lack of capacity to have a meaningful discussion on the subject of causality.
" For motion, you describe local motion and then get to the relevant part: "Sometimes motion is said to mean change. But all change of all sorts requires motion." You get it, then blow it with yet another retreat into mechanical description."
Motion is mechanical, and since change is motion, change is mechanical.
" So, you have no idea what an essentially ordered causal series is. "
It is an ancient idea that has no place in modern discussions of causality.
"You have no idea what "in act" is."
It is a babble term you are unable to define.
" You dismiss "potential" as not useful but at least know what it means,"
I know what all these terms mean in the sense that a modern person understands the superstitions of primitive people.
" What is an essentially ordered causal series?
What does "in act" mean?
Why does the argument use "potential" as an important concept to understand?
What is the argument getting at when discussing motion (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?"
Asked and answered on multiple posts, several times just recently, the above for example. If you have some viable alternative definitions by all means present them.
March 24, 2017 10:23 AM
>> "Nothing causes motion except things that can cause motion."
Not a tautology *facepalm*
>> "Sure it does, motion causes motion."
You mean, just like reflections of bears in mirrors create reflections of bears in mirrors?
>> "I am glad you disagree with the many times various theists have contradicted your above point."
*sigh*. There is no disagreement or contradiction. All the examples you quoted from me and the other are within the context of you repeating the error that one of the premises is motion causes motion. It doesn't say that.
This is hysterical:
Legion: "What is an essentially ordered causal series?
What does "in act" mean?
Why does the argument use "potential" as an important concept to understand?
What is the argument getting at when discussing motion (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?"
Hey, while you're at it perfessor, why don't you continue your tutorial with this topic as well:
What is phlogiston?
Regarding phlogiston, what does "essence, as opposed to a particle" mean?
Why does the argument for phlogiston concern itself with "the terra pinguis" as an important concept to understand?
What is the argument for phlogiston getting at when discussing how it is a substance that can't be transported (as defined in the argument) and then providing examples?
There's so much ground to cover, so much knowledge for you to convey!
@Stardusty, Is there anything more tragicomic than someone who's understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic? And how are so slow on the uptake that they grab ahold of the podium and try to begin to instruct.
It's not sad; it's awesome!
SP: "Actually, I explained it correctly. You provide no viable alternative."
No, you embarrassed yourself. Try again. I and others have provided the definition and examples, for example March 23 at 4:00 p.m.
SP: "Again, my description of the term matches your past usage of it, and you offer no viable alternative."
No, your description of the term is a humiliation to yourself. Try again. We have defined it over and over, so even you should be able to figure it out.
SP: "That's one of your many problems with a lack of capacity to have a meaningful discussion on the subject of causality."
Science/scientific is not synonymous with meaning/meaningful. Useless objection. If you want to assert that science is the only meaningful method of describing something, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I look forward to your demonstration.
SP: "Motion is mechanical, and since change is motion, change is mechanical."
The method of causal power is subordinate to the concept of causal power in this argument - a chain link has pulling power not simply because of molecular bonding or high tensile strength or because it is a closed loop that prevents parting, but because the link is being pulled by some sort of power - a motor, a human, whatever the case may be. It doesn't matter if the chain link is literally unbreakable, it will pull nothing unless it derives pulling power from the link behind it, and so on all the way to the source of the power - the function first mover of the series (though not the literal first mover that Aquinas and Aristotle are demonstrating). You're wanting to discuss the mechanical properties of the chain, while we are trying to point out that regardless of the properties of the chain, its ability to cause anything - in this case, to pull - is derived from something else. That is an essentially ordered series. No one ever saw a chain pulling anything without something pulling the other end.
SP: "It [act] is a babble term you are unable to define."
I've defined it probably dozens of times. The problem isn't my lack of defining, but your lack of understanding.
So, we've again determined that you have no idea what an essentially ordered causal series is. You have no idea what "in act" means, despite us telling you scores of times. You are still hung up on the mechanical means of cause/effect, which is not the point of the argument. And yet you claim to understand the argument and to have refuted it. That is nonsense.
I'm not moving on until you can get these right. You can admit your ignorance and decline to get them right, which is also fine by me, but I'm tired of dealing with nonsense posts that don't even address the argument. Some refined questions, then.
What is an example of an essentially ordered causal series?
Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?
What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?
Cal,
Phlogiston theory is a superceded "scientific" theory that attempted to explain why things burn, based upon limited means of study. Your attempt at wit here ironically reinforces one of our core refutations of your objections - namely, that you and SD are desperately trying to force the First Way into a pseudo-scientific argument, which it is not and was never intended to be. The fact that you throw a pseudo-scientific idea at me, as if it makes some sort of point about the First Way, is hilariously illustrative of your continued error.
Cal: "Is there anything more tragicomic than someone who's understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic?"
Rarely has one post been so ironic in so many ways. Indeed, there is not anything more "tragicomic" than someone whose understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic. On this we agree.
You're welcome to also attempt to answer the questions. Prove that understanding!
What is an example of an essentially ordered causal series?
Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?
What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?
@Legion of Logic,
I think your example of a match is a good one. An unlit match has the potential to start wood on fire but not actually. Once struck, that potential is "in act" and so it can actually start the wood on fire. I'm sure it wasn't difficult for your daughter to understand.
Likewise SteveK's example of mirrors reflecting off each other is a good analogy to what an essentially ordered causal series is.
Legion: “Phlogiston theory is a superceded "scientific" theory that attempted to explain why things burn, based upon limited means of study.”
Yes. In that way, it’s very, very similar to the First Way.
Legion: “Your attempt at wit here ironically reinforces one of our core refutations of your objections - namely, that you and SD are desperately trying to force the First Way into a pseudo-scientific argument, which it is not and was never intended to be.”
What kind of an argument has unsound premises?
What kind of an argument contradicts itself?
What kind of an argument uses circular reasoning?
What kind of argument is ad hoc?
If the First Way is intended to be all these things, then it succeeds at being that kind of argument.
Your attempt to elicit the imagined boogeyman of “scientism” appears to be nothing more than a ploy to exempt your silly defense of the First Way from the requirement of any argument.
The First Way stands — and fails — on the objective standard by which all arguments are evaluated. You don’t get a free pass by trying to change the rules of argument based on the age of your argument. That would just be silly.
And sad.
Legion: “Rarely has one post been so ironic in so many ways. Indeed, there is not anything more "tragicomic" than someone whose understanding is so shallow that they don't even recognize their relative ignorance on a topic. On this we agree.”
We are all ignorant of most things. The trick to possessing knowledge isn’t just demanding that others come to learn whatever you believe, but demonstrating the usefulness of what you know to be correct. Everything else is vanity.
And vanity is the best explanation for your silly need to get others to pay attention to the First Way, and to justify the amount of time you’ve already wasted trying to make sense of its obvious deficiencies. We should care about the First Way because, apparently, you find it important. Sorry, but pretending that you possess valuable knowledge is not something that’s worth our time. Get over yourself.
Legion: “You're welcome to also attempt to answer the questions. Prove that understanding! / What is an example of an essentially ordered causal series?”
You seem to think that you your arbitrary preferences for definitions is what is at issue in a discussion; it never is.
Discussions are about mutually agreed definitions, and applying those definitions consistently, and using the rules of logic, and testing the soundness of premises.
For that reason, “in act,” or an “essentially ordered series” can be whatever you define them to be. And so we test those definitions according to how these matters are analyzed — by the rules of argument.
I couldn’t care less what you think “in act” means. Once again, get over yourself.
I do care about consistency, and I hate hypocrisy, and sanctimony, and I am compelled to point these things out. So, if you want to persuade others, do this:
- Define your terms clearly.
- Form them into an argument that conforms to the rules of argument.
- Accept the result stipulated by your definitions and the rules of argument.
So far, all you have shown is that you are so vain you can’t grasp or employ this simple process to justify the time you’ve apparently frittered away trying to make sense of the First Way.
This is the problem with apologists: they can't absorb information that challenges their preconceived beliefs, or would undermine the notion that they are in possession of valuable knowledge:
Legion: "Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?"
Legion (from March 23 at4:07): ""in act" = actualized/existing/etc?"
Stardusty explaining what this definition does to the argument (pasted yet again. sigh):
"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.
So, to answer your questions -- Legion: "Based on my post from March 23 at 4:07, what does "in act" mean?" -- I think it means that you are incapable of the discipline it takes to analyze arguments.
Cal: "Yes. In that way, it’s very, very similar to the First Way."
That's amazing, considering the First Way was never intended to be a science-type argument.
Cal: "Your attempt to elicit the imagined boogeyman of “scientism” appears to be nothing more than a ploy to exempt your silly defense of the First Way from the requirement of any argument."
What is a valid form of discussing reality other than scientific discoveries?
Cal: "And vanity is the best explanation for your silly need to get others to pay attention to the First Way"
So now my responding to you and SD is vanity and a silly need? Interesting, I thought the way this worked was a back-and-forth exchange. You apparently want to lecture without me responding. Write your own blog then, and censor me from the comments if you don't want your lack of understanding about the First Way to be pointed out to you over there, too.
Cal: "and to justify the amount of time you’ve already wasted trying to make sense of its obvious deficiencies."
We have decisively demonstrated that you and SD have no idea what the First Way is saying. Your assertion here is as meaningful as a blind man talking about how obviously ugly a painting was.
Cal: "We should care about the First Way because, apparently, you find it important."
I couldn't care less if you care about the First Way, but I'm also under no obligation to withhold responses when I see you and SD engaged in the First Strawman.
Cal: "Sorry, but pretending that you possess valuable knowledge is not something that’s worth our time. Get over yourself."
Says the guy responding to me.
Cal: "You seem to think that you your arbitrary preferences for definitions is what is at issue in a discussion"
The first definition of "arbitrary" I found on a Google search was "based on random choice or personal whim". As none of my definitions regarding the First Way have been random or whimsical, but are instead consistent and based upon the meaning of the First Way, I can only conclude that you either don't know what the definition of arbitrary is, or you don't read what I write.
Cal: "Discussions are about mutually agreed definitions, and applying those definitions consistently"
You don't want a discussion, you want to lecture, since you don't want me responding. Regardless, your description of a discussion is hard to do when one side (you) denies that such definitions have been given, despite the exact post being identified in which the definition is given. It's also hard to do when one side (you) refuses to accept the definition and instead turns to a strawman.
Cal: "For that reason, “in act,” or an “essentially ordered series” can be whatever you define them to be."
No they can't, because the First Way and other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle establish what they are. If I use any other definition, such as what you and SD are doing, I am no longer talking about the First Way.
Cal: "I couldn’t care less what you think “in act” means. Once again, get over yourself."
Your reaction here makes me think that my asking questions, rather than giving answers, is putting your strawman arguments and petty insults toward the First Way in a rather pathetic light. Lashing out at me in an attempt to avoid learning what the First Way is about - and therefore having to consider its conclusion - is not going to make me change my strategy.
Cal: "Define your terms clearly"
Already have, and even pointed out the posts where I did so.
Cal: "Form them into an argument that conforms to the rules of argument."
Why? The First Way already did so. And as you have yet to understand the First Way, there's no point in trying another argument.
Cal: "Stardusty explaining what this definition does to the argument (pasted yet again. sigh): "
And I took his post and, line by line, showed how he did not demonstrate any sort of gibberish, unclear meaning, etc. This occurred in my post that you quoted, March 23 at 4:07. The only thing SD demonstrated was that he has no idea what the First Argument is saying.
So, since you claim that apologists are the ones who can't absorb new information, let's differentiate yourself from those silly apologists, shall we? All of these have been answered by myself and others, many many times. I'm sure you'll claim to not care about these questions, but we both know your failure to answer them is not a result of lack of desire, but rather a lack of understanding.
What is an essentially ordered causal series?
What does "in act" mean?
What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?
Bonus question: Why is my participation in this thread a sign of vanity and a silly need, and yours is not? Clear explanation, please.
Me: "Yes. In that way, it’s very, very similar to the First Way."
Legion: “That's amazing, considering the First Way was never intended to be a science-type argument.”
It’s meant to be an argument. It fails miserably. You can’t blame it’s failure on scientism. It fails all by itself, although it does, of course, suffer from the lack of understanding of physics (like phlogiston theory) that we enjoy today.
Me: “What is a valid form of discussing reality other than scientific discoveries?”
I can’t think of any productive way of discussing reality that eschews scientific knowledge. Can you?
Me: "And vanity is the best explanation for your silly need to get others to pay attention to the First Way"
Legion: “So now my responding to you and SD is vanity and a silly need?:
Read what I wrote. You want us to believe that you are in possession of valuable knowledge, and for some reason you think that the First Way is your best shot. Go figure.
Legion: “You apparently want to lecture without me responding. Write your own blog then, and censor me from the comments if you don't want your lack of understanding about the First Way to be pointed out to you over there, too.”
You forget that you are the one who originally brought up the First Way, and invited me to refute it. Now you want to pretend that I am intruding. What a piece of work you are.
Legion: “We have decisively demonstrated that you and SD have no idea what the First Way is saying. Your assertion here is as meaningful as a blind man talking about how obviously ugly a painting was.”
You appear deluded.
Me: "We should care about the First Way because, apparently, you find it important."
Legion: I couldn't care less if you care about the First Way, but I'm also under no obligation to withhold responses when I see you and SD engaged in the First Strawman.”
You invited me to look at the First Way and to refute it. Your rebuttals have show that you don’t know how to approach this topic rationally. As evidence, I provide this entire thread, and the several on this topic that preceded it.
Me "Sorry, but pretending that you possess valuable knowledge is not something that’s worth our time. Get over yourself."
Legion: “Says the guy responding to me.”
Yes, I am responding to you, following your invitation. Now apparently you think that’s wrong of me. This doesn’t make you seem very consistent.
Me: "You seem to think that you your arbitrary preferences for definitions is what is at issue in a discussion"
Legion: “The first definition of "arbitrary" I found on a Google search was "based on random choice or personal whim". As none of my definitions regarding the First Way have been random or whimsical…”
Our definitions are subject to our personal preferences — you prefer to define arbitrary as random, and I prefer to define it (per the definition you included above) as subject to personal whim. To be clear, I meant it as subject to personal whim — meaning that we are free to use words in ways that we like, so long as we are clear about what those definitions (that we prefer) are.
Legion: “…but are instead consistent and based upon the meaning of the First Way, I can only conclude that you either don't know what the definition of arbitrary is, or you don't read what I write.”
See the definition of arbitrary you provided above (“…OR PERSONAL WHIM”), and reread what I wrote and try to understand it again. I will say it another way: there is no absolutely correct definition for any term — all words are fluid, and can be imprecise. But if we are careful with our language, and take the time to be clear and refine exactly what we mean when we use words, then we can avoid the confusion that comes from disagreement over definitions.
If you can’t find a way to define a word clearly, that’s a good indication that you haven’t thought the concept through clearly, and that you’ve invited the problems that come from equivocation.
Me: "Discussions are about mutually agreed definitions, and applying those definitions consistently"
Legion: “You don't want a discussion, you want to lecture, since you don't want me responding.”
I’d like a meaningful response that explains the rational reasons why the First Way isn’t refuted for the reasons that we’ve mentioned so many times now — that it’s not sound, that contradicts itself, that it’s circular, that it equivocates, and that it’s ad hoc.
Legion: “Regardless, your description of a discussion is hard to do when one side (you) denies that such definitions have been given, despite the exact post being identified in which the definition is given. It's also hard to do when one side (you) refuses to accept the definition and instead turns to a strawman.”
I quoted your definition in my last comment before you responded "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?". What more do you want me to do, exactly?
Me: "For that reason, “in act,” or an “essentially ordered series” can be whatever you define them to be."
Legion: “No they can't, because the First Way and other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle establish what they are. If I use any other definition, such as what you and SD are doing, I am no longer talking about the First Way.”
What other definitions that SD and I are using? We are the ones who are taking your definition — "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?" — and showing how it renders the argument into a kind of drivel.
Cal: "I couldn’t care less what you think “in act” means. Once again, get over yourself."
Legion: “Your reaction here makes me think that my asking questions, rather than giving answers, is putting your strawman arguments and petty insults toward the First Way in a rather pathetic light. Lashing out at me in an attempt to avoid learning what the First Way is about - and therefore having to consider its conclusion - is not going to make me change my strategy.”
You misunderstand, again. There is no absolute correct version of any word. The only thing that matters in a discussion is that there is agreement about terms. So far, I don’t know what more you want me to do with the fact that understanding "in act" = actualized/existing/etc?" renders the First Way into a kind of drivel.
Cal: "Define your terms clearly"
Legion: “Already have, and even pointed out the posts where I did so.”
If you are happy with your efforts then I am content with mine.
Cal: "Form them into an argument that conforms to the rules of argument."
Legion: “Why? The First Way already did so. And as you have yet to understand the First Way, there's no point in trying another argument.”
If you are happy with your efforts then I am content with mine.
Cal: "Stardusty explaining what this definition does to the argument (pasted yet again. sigh): "
Legion: “And I took his post and, line by line, showed how he did not demonstrate any sort of gibberish, unclear meaning, etc. This occurred in my post that you quoted, March 23 at 4:07. The only thing SD demonstrated was that he has no idea what the First Argument is saying.”
If that’s what you think you did then I am content with our discussion resting where it is.
Legion: “So, since you claim that apologists are the ones who can't absorb new information, let's differentiate yourself from those silly apologists, shall we? All of these have been answered by myself and others, many many times. I'm sure you'll claim to not care about these questions, but we both know your failure to answer them is not a result of lack of desire, but rather a lack of understanding. / What is an essentially ordered causal series?”
I don’t care. Define it, and try and show me how this definition somehow saves the First Way from being such a bad argument (because that’s what we’re discussing).
Legion: "What does "in act" mean?”
I don’t care. Define it, and try and show me how this definition somehow saves the First Way from being such a bad argument (because that’s what we’re discussing).
Legion: “What is the difference between talking about the physical properties of a chain link that give it the strength to pull, and talking about the ability of a chain link to pull on its own?”
I don’t care. Show me how this somehow saves the First Way from being such a bad argument (because that’s what we’re discussing).
Legion: “Bonus question: Why is my participation in this thread a sign of vanity and a silly need, and yours is not? Clear explanation, please.”
My motivation can best be explained by my compulsion to oppose hypocrisy, inconsistency, and sanctimony. (I don’t doubt that there is some vanity involved as well.)
Your motivation can best be explained by a desire to gain authority and respect (very human motivation as well), but your method for achieving this is a kind of demand to admire a bad and useless argument who’s only remarkable feature is that it serves as a kind of group marker; you want respect for something that you believe, and that signifies that you belong to a group you consider powerful, not for something that you know that is useful. I can think of few things more vain than that.
LoL,
I honestly and humbly don't see how the objections cited here are actual objections at all. If act and potency are useless terms, what would constitute a "scientific" explanation of change?
If "in act" simply means to "exist", (which I don't think quite captures it) then the notion of "pure act" would indeed seem like gibberish IF "existence" must mean matter/energy.
Chris: "I honestly and humbly don't see how the objections cited here are actual objections at all."
The first way is unsound, equivocates, contradicts itself, is circular, and is ad hoc. If you don't see how those are actual objections to an argument then no one can help you.
Chris: "If act and potency are useless terms, what would constitute a "scientific" explanation of change?"
Entropy, for starters.
Chris: "If "in act" simply means to "exist", (which I don't think quite captures it)..."
Then you should try to define it more precisely so that it can be used to accurately mean something.
Chris: "... then the notion of "pure act" would indeed seem like gibberish IF "existence" must mean matter/energy."
This is a problem for those who think the terms you speak of are important conveyors of precise concepts that lend themselves to useful description.
So far, no one has been able to define these terms that save the First Way from its problems.
---------------
Hey, Chris, now that you're back, why don't you respond to the question i asked before you left:
Me: "Instead of meaningfully grappling with the obvious deficiencies, the apologists divert, ignore, or fail to engage with the substance."
Chris: "Over and over and over, the deficiencies of the critic's "objections" are pointed out- and pointed out in the face of an obstinacy that can only be accounted for save an utterly dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism."
Me: "Can you re-state what you think is the best response to an objection raised by the skeptics here?"
Cal,
Thank you for admitting that despite having no idea what the argument is saying, you still feel like you are qualified to refute it. Thank you for also demonstrating that you intentionally cast apologists in as negative a light as possible by twisting everything they say and holding them to different standards than yourself, which shows what kind of person you are. Thank you for admitting your scientism. And finally, thank you for proving every one of my points, over and over. The First Way stands unrefuted by you, so you have retreated into insults and not even attempting to show that it's bad. I'm content at leaving it here - with you having no idea what you're talking about, and doing everything you can to avoid engaging with it. Here is yet another example of the mighty intellectual prowess within the anti-theist movement.
Chris: "If "in act" simply means to "exist", (which I don't think quite captures it)"
Keep in mind, we are dealing with people who ignore inconvenient posts that instantly refute what they are saying, deny they have been refuted when they obviously have been, and cast everything we say in as negative or absurd a fashion as one could imagine. With this mindset, simplistic definitions that are largely synonymous just to prevent them from engaging in further strawman arguments is as good as it can get.
Now in the case of Cal, with his last series of posts to me, he has admitted he doesn't know what the argument means and simply doesn't care, and is even retreating from attempting to use the First Strawman argument. Cal freely shows that his strategy is to conclude that the First Way can't be right, and then ridicule it. You showed the correct way to do it early on - learn what the argument is actually saying, and then analyze and rate it. Cal has no interest in learning it, and SD believes he already understands it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That's why I began simply asking questions rather than explaining for the 500th time. Rather than asserting their errors, I am demonstrating them.
LoL,
The critics have charged the FW as being circular. Either I can't be helped or the critics are not making a good case. Pehaps it's both, I'm not sure. In any event, it seems to me that the unchanged changer is not assumed in the argument.
Entropy strikes me as being a fine example of the act/potency distinction. Something is this, has the potential to be that.
The terms are pretty clear as is the conclusion. In a causal chain that is accidentally ordered, it could go on infinitely. In a causal chain that is essentially ordered , it could not. Why? The members in the chain do not have the power of change in the themselves, they are merely instruments in the series. Is that right?
Legion: “Thank you for admitting that despite having no idea what the argument is saying, you still feel like you are qualified to refute it.”
Yes, it’s true that anyone who understands the rules of argument is qualified to refute bad arguments. No specialized knowledge is needed to do this.
Legion: “Thank you for also demonstrating that you intentionally cast apologists in as negative a light as possible by twisting everything they say and holding them to different standards than yourself, which shows what kind of person you are.”
I think you mean that I confessed to feeling compelled to expose hypocrisy, inconsistency, and sanctimony. The fact that the light I shine on these things makes apologists appear to be dishonest (and often quite shabby as well) is not my fault. You guys just keep doing stuff that’s easy to expose as the sham it is.
Legion: “Thank you for admitting your scientism.”
Like this. Why you appear detestable isn’t because you are wrong; you appear detestable because rather than correct your beliefs you try to lash out at others. This does more to confirm my theory that a lack of humility is at the heart of much ignorance, and that moral failings seem to be so often intertwined with false beliefs.
Legion: “And finally, thank you for proving every one of my points, over and over.”
You appear to live in your own fantasy world. This is common among narcissists.
Legion: “The First Way stands unrefuted by you, so you have retreated into insults and not even attempting to show that it's bad.”
My insults are reflections of your behavior, and explanations for my observations. You don’t cast yourself in a good light, and my explanations are blunt. Still, they seem most likely right, and they predict much of what you do, so I won’t shy away from them.
Legion: “I'm content at leaving it here - with you having no idea what you're talking about, and doing everything you can to avoid engaging with it.”
I invited you to define your terms precisely and accurately, so they could be used within the argument you are claiming to defend. For all of these comments, you have run away from this invitation. And you are still running.
Any claim at your having achieved some sort of victory here is nothing more than a testament to the fantasy world you live in.
Chris: "The members in the chain do not have the power of change in the themselves, they are merely instruments in the series. Is that right?"
Yes. A chain link pulls, but only because it is being pulled. A mirror reflects, but only because it has an image to reflect. Take away the first link of the chain, or take away the image being reflected, and they instantly lose their ability to change other things. Those are essentially ordered, as opposed to accidentally ordered, such as grandparents causing the parents causing the child - the grandparents and parents do not need to continue existing in order for the child to exist.
Cal,
Everything you said in your last post is laughable nonsense. Especially the blatant lie that I have attempted to avoid defining the terms - I even listed the post where I did so.
So in addition to the rest of my gratitude, thank you for proving that you are a liar.
LoL,
It also appears to me that the critics of the FW are implying that, at the end of the day, the First Way and the Kalam argument are fundamentally the same and fail for the same reason- going back temporally into the past or going "down" into reality in the present moment doesn't make a difference. An infinite regress is an infinite regress, and the problem is not "solved" by a "infinite" Being that is "pure existence" because that is incoherent.
Legion: “Everything you said in your last post is laughable nonsense. Especially the blatant lie that I have attempted to avoid defining the terms - I even listed the post where I did so.”
I think you mean your post at 4:07 — I think that’s the only one where you later claimed to have defined your terms. I looked it over, and I found no clear definition of terms. These two quips are the best you seem to have come up with in your now famous 4:07 post”
1. Legion: “Motion in the argument is the realization of a potential state, so this is essentially correct. The realization of a potential state brings that state into existence.”
and
2. Legion: “in act" = actualized/existing/etc?”
So, that’s it. Those are your precise, clear definition of terms, the ones that you seem to think save the First Way, and make it all clear.
Let’s replace your definitions in the argument and see how that actually clears up the argument for real, instead of in the fantasy land in which you dwell:
(1) For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world realizes of a potential state.
(2) But, all that is realized of a potential state, is realized of a potential state by another.
a. Nothing is, in fact, realized of a potential state, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is realized of a potential state.
b. But, a thing realizes of a potential state only insomuch as it is in actualized/existing/etc.
c. In fact, to realize a potential state is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to actualized/existing.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to actualized/existing, unless it is by a thing that is in actualized/existing.
i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning actualized/existing, and in this way the wood is realized of a potential state and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously actualized/existing/etc 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 realizing of a potential state and is realized of a potential state,or in other words, that it realizes of a potential state itself.
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is realized of a potential state is realized of a potential state by another.
(3) If, therefore, that which realizes of a potential state is realized of a potential state, then it must be realized of a potential state 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 realizer of a potential state; and consequently, no thing would realize of a potential state another,
b. Because second realizers of a potential states do not realize of a potential state unless they are realized of a potential state by a first realizer of a potential stater, in the same way that a cane is not realized of a potential state unless it is realized of a potential state by a hand.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first realizer of a potential state which is not realized of a potential state:
a. and this is what all consider to be God.
Lol.
But please, do as you say you can. Just provide clear, precise terms that save the above from being total drivel.
You won’t because you can’t. So you will go on and claim that you have done somewhere else, before, even though those who comb these comments will never, ever find you or any other apologists providing precise definitions that somehow magically save the First Way from itself.
Chris: "The critics have charged the FW as being circular. Either I can't be helped or the critics are not making a good case. "
I'll try and help you.
How does the First Way determine that an infinite regress is impossible? The First Way says, "Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another."
The argument seeks to demonstrate that because we observe things in a state of change, there must be a first mover, rather than an infinite regress, that propels this observed change. In the quote above, the two reasons it gives in conjunction for this conclusion is that a) there must be a first mover otherwise there would not be a first mover (?), and b) there must be a first mover in order for us to observe change. But in order to demonstrate this, the argument most show that the source of observed change cannot proceed infinitely. And the reason that it gives for this conclusion is, well, that the source of observed change cannot proceed infinitely.
That's what we call circular reasoning.
Cal,
Respectfully, you are disregarding the distinction between an essentially ordered series and accidentally ordered series. If all causal relationships are accidental, then I see your point. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as a series in which the members of the chain have only instrumental or derivative causal efficacy?
Cal,
Congratulations, you have also demonstrated that you don't know how language and communication work.
"The person named Cal went to the person named Cal's house to get the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards because the person named Cal accidentally left the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards there when the person named Cal stopped by to use the person named Cal's bathroom."
We can of course use the above in place of "Cal went to his house to get his wallet because he accidentally left it there when he stopped by to use his bathroom." In doing so, however, we make ourselves look like complete idiots.
The argument defines motion as the actualization of a potential state. When he says move or motion, he means the actualization of a potential state, because he defines what he means in the argument. That does not make it appropriate, for communication, to replace the one word with its defining phrase every time it occurs.
The definitions have been provided. You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of act or an essentially ordered series. But please, continue amusing me with your antics.
Chris: "Respectfully, you are disregarding the distinction between an essentially ordered series and accidentally ordered series. If all causal relationships are accidental, then I see your point. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as a series in which the members of the chain have only instrumental or derivative causal efficacy?"
Nope. I'm pointing out that the First Way fails to demonstrate that an unmoved mover is required (if one accepts the earlier premises), rather than an infinite regress.
Please understand that the First Way doesn't fail because it obviously makes the wrong conclusion; the First Way fails where it makes a conclusion by resorting to circularity. Pointing out where an argument fails doesn't mean that one necessarily subscribes to the conclusion's alternative, or even that the conclusion is wrong -- only that the argument fails in at least some of the ways that arguments fail.
Legion: ""The person named Cal went to the person named Cal's house to get the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards because the person named Cal accidentally left the person named Cal's small pouch used to hold money and identification cards there when the person named Cal stopped by to use the person named Cal's bathroom."
This is long-winded but it makes perfect sense to me -- and it's semantically identical to the shorter version. Why do you think it makes you sound like an idiot?
Legion: "The argument defines motion as the actualization of a potential state. When he says move or motion, he means the actualization of a potential state, because he defines what he means in the argument. That does not make it appropriate, for communication, to replace the one word with its defining phrase every time it occurs."
The point being that your supposed "definition" makes the argument even less clear (as well as longer). When a longer, more explicit version fails to clarify something more compact, then you can be sure you have a problem with your thinking.
Your supposedly clarifying language only makes the argument less clear and explicit. This is why your supposed "definition" is an obvious failure, and why the kindest thing to do is to ignore your request to treat it as I have. Still, you insisted.
Legion: "The definitions have been provided."
Your "definitions" fail to make the argument better -- I think they actually make it even less clear, and more muddled (and that's saying something).
Legion: "You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of act or an essentially ordered series."
Your definitions fail to clarify an already muddled argument. You appear to live a narcissist's fantasy land.
Cal: "This is long-winded but it makes perfect sense to me"
I can say the same with SD's replacement with "existent" and yours with "realized of a potential state", although you use the wrong word forms and unrealistic sentence structure very, very often:
"For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world realizes of a potential state", no one would say this, for example. But they might say "things in this world bring about the realization of potential states". It's much more verbose than it should be, but it is still functional and gives the same meaning. Your refusal to adjust the phrasing to make the sentences more clear is on you, not the definition.
At any rate, I can read both and get the same meaning, largely due to my understanding the point of the argument. So the definition is obviously not the problem. I'm sorry that you think reality is a fantasy land.
We are approaching 900 comments, which is probably embarrassing. However, I appear to not have enough hobbies and am enjoying myself, so here I remain.
Cal, I am perfectly willing to do a series of posts in which we both analyze each segment of the argument using the exact same agreed-upon definitions so there can be no dodging or moving of goalposts. If you are willing to participate, let me know and I will lay out the definitions I propose we use (I have them written down and ready), and you can agree whether you find them acceptable. If you don't want to do this, let me know and we can walk away from this thread, since nothing is going to get accomplished as is. I'm assuming you might be interested based upon your continued presence here, but I could be wrong there. '
For the record, your accusations of narcissism are ridiculous. I'm engaged in this because 1) I frankly enjoy discussing ideas, though the amount of snark I've unleashed in kind is likely shameful, 2) I find the metaphysics being discussed fascinating, and 3) I'd love to analyze the First Way with someone who understands it but still disagrees, since that is where flaws in my thinking would be revealed. Between you and SD, I think you are the one who has the capacity to grasp the argument and disagree on its own terms, which is why I'm throwing out this next offer to you. Let me know.
Cal,
I am going to have to ask you to cut me some slack here- what you are calling circular, I am calling consistent. IF you accept an essentially ordered series and IF you accept that observed change is real and not illusory, than the unchanged changer follows from the premises.
What am I not seeing? Lol, feel free to chime in.
Legion: "Cal, I am perfectly willing to do a series of posts in which we both analyze each segment of the argument using the exact same agreed-upon definitions so there can be no dodging or moving of goalposts. If you are willing to participate, let me know and I will lay out the definitions I propose we use (I have them written down and ready), and you can agree whether you find them acceptable. "
Knock yourself out.
I'm going to be busy over the next few days / week, so I won't be able to respond very quickly.
Legion: "Between you and SD, I think you are the one who has the capacity to grasp the argument and disagree on its own terms, which is why I'm throwing out this next offer to you."
I agree with pretty much everything Stardusty has written here, and I admire his panache. I think you might have better luck with him because while we seem to share a similar compulsion, he seems a lot more knowledgeable than me on this topic. Plus he's probably a lot smarter, which might make him less obstinate.
@Legion of Logic:
"I think you are the one who has the capacity to grasp the argument and disagree on its own terms, which is why I'm throwing out this next offer to you."
Never in the internet land I have seen such faith.
"Never in the internet land I have seen such faith."
At one point, he did grasp part of it. That's more than SD has accomplished so far. My experience with SD on multiple sites is once he stakes out a position, he becomes the unmoved non-mover. He can't convince anyone else of his position, nor will he be convinced of anything, so it's just futility. Cal proved that he thought about it and grasped it, even if fleetingly, so that's far ahead of SD.
Here are my first draft definitions. Anyone feel free to refine or refute them.
In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice.
Potential: a state that could, but does not, exist. Water at room temperature is not frozen, but it could be given the right conditions, thus ice is a potential state of water.
Motion: the process of a potential state becoming actualized, i.e. change. Water that has frozen into ice has undergone motion, as it is a potential state becoming an actualized state.
Essentially ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is actively required for the existence of the series, since each step of the series derives its causal power from change being acted upon it. A train or a chain are essentially ordered - Boxcar B pulls Boxcars C through Z, but if the engine is removed, all boxcars will cease moving since Boxcar B derives its pulling power from the engine.
Accidentally ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is not actively required for the existence of the series. The grandparents produce the parents who produce the child, but the existence of the grandparents or parents is not required for the continued existence of the child.
Legion: "In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice."
Can anything not be in act?
Isn't every thing in act?
Cal: "Can anything not be in act?"
Aquinas contrasts this with potential things - things which COULD exist but do not. The reason he does this is to set up the essentially ordered series later, so while it is a simple concept that might make one wonder why in the world he would point it out, it actually is for a reason.
That's why I earlier used "existing" as a synonym, because if it exists, it is in act - whatever state it is in is actualized, not potential.
Legion: "Aquinas contrasts this with potential things - things which COULD exist but do not."
How can a potential thing be a thing?
Isn't a potential thing the opposite of a thing?
Btw, you do deserve credit for trying to define these terms. You distinguish yourself from your fellow apologists by doing so.
Cal: "How can a potential thing be a thing?"
I'm not sure how to clarify except through example. Given the right conditions, water can turn to ice, so ice is a potential state of water. Given the right conditions, wood can burn, so burning is a potential state of wood. When I say "potential things" - which I will try to avoid - I'm really talking about potential states of a thing.
@Legion of Logic:
"Aquinas contrasts this with potential things - things which COULD exist but do not."
I am going to repent saying this, but this is not quite correct. For one, it collapses potentiality into mere possibility.
To understand potentiality, and why Aristotle posits it (and Aquinas in the First Way and the circle of ideas surrounding it does not advance much beyond Aristotle), you have to go to his arguments that change is real, starting with his response to the argument of Parmenides that change is illusory (and also the response to the extreme opposite held by Heraclites, that permanence or persistence is illusory, everything being in permanent state of flux) -- after all, it is not a coincidence that the First Mover is also called the Unchanged Changer.
grodrigues,
How would you word it as an attempt at a concise definition?
Stole 900th comment!
@Legion of Logic:
"How would you word it as an attempt at a concise definition?"
"Concise definition"? Here is Garrigou-Lagrange's from "Reality: a Thomistic synthesis, chapter 5":
"But now this determinableness, transformableness: what is it positively? What is this real, objective potency, presupposed to motion, to mutation, to transformation? It is a real capacity to receive a definite, determined form, the form, say, of the statue, a capacity which is not in air or water, but is in wood, or marble, or sand. This capacity to become a statue is the statue in potency."
The point here is that potentiality cannot be reduced to simple possibility, but is a real, objective feature of existing things (or to be more precise of all composites of act and potency, that is, everything with the exception of God), a sort of medium between act and non-being.
You can read this and more here.
You do know what is going to happen, right? You will be charged with being "obscure", "confused" and "muddled". To an intellectually dishonest, uneducated idiot, everything is "obscure", "confused" and "muddled". Consider the following three sentences:
1. Every paracompact, Hausdorff, normal, second-countable differentiable manifold admits a triangulation.
2. The category of perverse sheaves is the heart of the perverse t-structure on the bounded derived category of sheaves of an analytic space with constructible cohomology.
3. The triangulation of a complex of sheaves of finite height is isomorphic to its dual.
One sentence is true, one is false and the other is a "word salad", but I am pretty confident that only a mathematician could tell which is which, and the reasons for his choice (that is, without guessing).
"It is a real capacity to receive a definite, determined form, the form, say, of the statue, a capacity which is not in air or water, but is in wood, or marble, or sand. This capacity to become a statue is the statue in potency."
So, rather than calling it a possibility, maybe something like "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized", like the capacity for water to turn to ice given the correct conditions? I re-read Feser's Aquinas, and I see why you are pointing out the distinction.
@Legion of Logic:
Right. Feser does indeed the same distinction. He probably learned it from Garrigou-Lagrange; so here he is again, from the link in my previous post:
"Many authors of manuals of philosophy ignore this divergence and give hardly more than nominal definitions of potency and act. They offer us the accepted axioms, but they do not make clear why it is necessary to admit potency as a reality between absolute nothing and actually existing being. Nor do they show how and wherein real potency is distinguished, on the one hand, from privation and simple possibility, and on the other from even the most imperfect act."
And a little further down, noting the essential distinction between creation and change (and with a sketch of an argument for the existence of God no less):
"St. Thomas excels in explaining this distinction, just now noted, between passive potency and active potency. Real passive potency is not simple possibility. Simple possibility is prerequired and suffices for creation ex nihilo. But it does not suffice as prerequisite for motion, change, mutation. Mutation presupposes a real subject, determinable, transformable, mutable, whereas creation is the production of the entire created being, without any presupposed real potency. [158] Now, since active potency, active power, must be greater in proportion to its passive correlative, it follows that when passive potency is reduced to zero, the active potency must be infinite. In other words, the most universal of effects, the being of all things, cannot be produced except by the most universal of all causes, that is, by the Supreme Being."
My 2 cents:
In order for a thing to undergo change and still remain the same thing (as opposed to going out of existence every instant and something else coming into existence instead) that thing must actually be something with a natural potential to change while still remaining essentially the same thing.
So for instance a human child has the natural potential to become an adult given air, water, food etc. We can know this because as adults we can remember when we were a child. However, a human child does not have a natural potential to sprout wings and fly away. That is not a natural potential.
So a thing naturally has both an actual state of being and movement toward its potential state of being. The range of natural future potential states is not infinite, but dependent on what kind of thing it is (it's nature). Also, being part of the nature of a thing, potency does not exist independently of that nature that is actually existing.
Aristotle and Aquinas also speak of the mix of act and potency as more or less perfecting the nature of a thing. So the more a thing actually changes toward its perfect nature, the more it is actually perfect and the potency toward that end it has. A perfect thing would have no potential left for perfection and so would be actually perfect.
Me: "Cal: "How can a potential thing be a thing?"
Legion: "I'm not sure how to clarify except through example. Given the right conditions, water can turn to ice, so ice is a potential state of water."
Ice is a state of water makes sense. And ice is a potential state of water makes sense.
Legion: "Given the right conditions, wood can burn, so burning is a potential state of wood. When I say "potential things" - which I will try to avoid - I'm really talking about potential states of a thing. "
It sounds to me that you are defining potential to be a list of the possible states that an existing thing can be. So, in that case, potential would mean "the thing in a different state from the one it presently exists." Or something like that. Do you agree, or disagree?
Grod: "The point here is that potentiality cannot be reduced to simple possibility, but is a real, objective feature of existing things (or to be more precise of all composites of act and potency, that is, everything with the exception of God), a sort of medium between act and non-being."
This just seems to reduce potential to a kind of Platonism.
Grod: "1. Every paracompact, Hausdorff, normal, second-countable differentiable manifold admits a triangulation. / 2. The category of perverse sheaves is the heart of the perverse t-structure on the bounded derived category of sheaves of an analytic space with constructible cohomology. / 3. The triangulation of a complex of sheaves of finite height is isomorphic to its dual.
One sentence is true, one is false and the other is a "word salad", but I am pretty confident that only a mathematician could tell which is which, and the reasons for his choice (that is, without guessing)."
Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms.
Obscurantism is not a feature of good arguments.
"Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms."
And another point-missing idiotic comment.
Me: "Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms."
Grod: "And another point-missing idiotic comment."
Only in apologetics land is the suggestion that one needs to clearly define terms in order to examine arguments considered to be missing the point and idiotic.
Sad.
"Do you want to know how we can determine which is which above? By clearly defining terms."
I wouldn't be able to know which statements were false, and why, even with clear definitions. You don't become knowledgeable about a subject just by being spoon fed clear definitions.
stevek: "I wouldn't be able to know which statements were false, and why, even with clear definitions. "
This doesn't surprise me.
stevek: "You don't become knowledgeable about a subject just by being spoon fed clear definitions."
Actually, that's pretty much how one becomes knowledgeable on any subject.
Apologetics land. This place is crazy,
Cal.
You can learn some things that way, but in this case you are being overly simplistic. Think book knowledge vs. applied/experiential/street knowledge. If you think learning pages and pages of definitions puts you on equal footing with everyone else, you are mistaken.
Stevek: "If you think learning pages and pages of definitions puts you on equal footing with everyone else, you are mistaken."
LOL. If there has been one refrain from the apologists over the course of these threads it's that the First Way would be understood to be a good argument if only skeptics would waste their time poring over some pages and pages of unspecified definitions, instead of relying on the principles that we use for evaluating arguments.
FYI, this is my updated version of the argument using the definitions offered by Legion so far. I think that adopting the definitions offered by Legion does help make the equivocations easier to spot (e.g, "... to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from a state to existence." ???), without resolving any of the problems pointed out throughout these threads.
(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 a state to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it exists.
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from a state to existence.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be made to exist, unless it is by a thing that exists.
For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is in a possible state of burning, to be actually burning, and in this way the wood is moved and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing simultaneously exists and in state in the same sense, but only in a different sense.
That, in effect, which is actually burning, cannot at the same time be in a possible state of burning, but is simultaneously in a possible state of 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.
Legion of Logic said...
" Given the right conditions, water can turn to ice, so ice is a potential state of water. Given the right conditions, wood can burn, so burning is a potential state of wood. When I say "potential things" - which I will try to avoid - I'm really talking about potential states of a thing."
Which is all very simplistic medieval language that attempts to make some ordered sense of the world in pre-scientific times.
So, it makes sense at our ordinary level of observation that only a moving thing makes a stationary thing move. Only a hot thing makes a cold thing hot.
Aquinas makes a series of such basic observations as our senses perceive them, our senses being cited by Aquinas at the outset. So fine for Aquinas in making such reasonable ordinary observations.
Unfortunately, those observations defeat his later arguments by self contradiction. In a vain attempt to save this medieval foolishness called the First Way later apologists try to assign "act=existence" to the plain language reasonableness of the first lines of the First Way.
This "act=existence" attempt only botches the plain language clarity of Aquinas turning his words into pointless babble, not even an argument any more, just inane statements about things that exist.
Cal reiterates this theological inanity in April 04, 2017 12:37 PM.
So, was Aquinas a self contradictory apologist who publish logically invalid and unsound arguments, or did he spout inane babble that does not even qualify as an argument?
March 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Cal,
Since this is not a comprehensive course on everything Aquinas, I personally think "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice. I'll give the others time to chime in and fine-tune it if they desire before I proceed.
Stardusty,
You will be welcome to chime in as we go, assuming you agree to use the definitions the rest of us will be using. If you disagree with the definitions, then you're welcome to offer your own, but keep in mind that we are using the definitions as understood by Aquinas and as used throughout all of his and Aristotle's works, which is the basis for why we use the definitions we do, so your justification for any offered definitions must be based on what Aquinas believed, not what you believe. If it's going to be an analysis of the First Way via consistent agreed-upon terminology in order to show its strength or its weakness, then it has to be done on Aquinas' terms, not our own.
Legion: "If it's going to be an analysis of the First Way via consistent agreed-upon terminology in order to show its strength or its weakness, then it has to be done on Aquinas' terms, not our own."
"Consistent, agreed upon terminology" are our terms. Whatever Aquinas thinks about our terminology can't be known, so let's stay with agreeing to consistent, agreed upon terms.
Legion: "Since this is not a comprehensive course on everything Aquinas, I personally think "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice."
So, to avoid confusion, potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has no state?
How can a thing be a thing if it has no state? This terminology doesn't seem to make sense.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty,
" You will be welcome to chime in as we go, assuming you agree to use the definitions the rest of us will be using. "
The definition "act=existence" has been used by the rest of "you" on many occasions.
" in order to show its strength or its weakness, then it has to be done on Aquinas' terms, not our own."
Many of "you" have asserted "act=existence". If such folks were wrong, fine.
April 04, 2017 3:00 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" I personally think "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice. "
That definition suffices for tautological assertions of the form "stuff that can do x is the kind of stuff that does x."
"Only stuff that can do x does x"
You have rendered Aquinas to be pointless babble, again.
April 04, 2017 2:55 PM
Cal: "Consistent, agreed upon terminology" are our terms."
Indeed. The definitions I am offering are based upon the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and modern scholars who have studied their works. Point being, I'm not just making it up.
"So, to avoid confusion, potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has no state?
How can a thing be a thing if it has no state? This terminology doesn't seem to make sense."
I see I should avoid any form of the word "act" or "actual" in my definitions.
Potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is not currently realized or in effect - such as wood having the capacity to burn given the correct conditions, thus wood can potentially burn.
Stardusty: "The definition "act=existence" has been used by the rest of "you" on many occasions."
The definition I have offered for my conversation with Cal is: "In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice." While I may have to come up with synonyms of "actualized" for this definition, my proposed working definition of "act" is "in an actualized state".
"Only stuff that can do x does x"
That's actually something to keep in mind for later, or rather the inverse of it. Regardless, right now it's "agree upon definitions" time. The futility of not doing so has already been demonstrated at length.
Here are my proposed brief definitions:
In act: in an actualized state. Frozen water is in act - it is in an actualized state of being ice.
Potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is not currently realized or in effect - such as water having the capacity to freeze into ice given the correct conditions, thus water can potentially freeze into ice.
Motion: the process of a potential state becoming actualized, i.e. change. Water that has frozen into ice has undergone motion, as it is a potential state becoming an actualized state.
Essentially ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is actively required for the existence of the series, since each step of the series derives its causal power from change being acted upon it. A train or a chain are essentially ordered - Boxcar B pulls Boxcars C through Z, but if the engine is removed, all boxcars will cease moving since Boxcar B derives its pulling power from the engine.
Accidentally ordered series: a series of causes in which each causal "step" is not actively required for the existence of the series. The grandparents produce the parents who produce the child, but the existence of the grandparents or parents is not required for the continued existence of the child.
Legion of Logic said...
SP "Only stuff that can do x does x"
" That's actually something to keep in mind for later, or rather the inverse of it. Regardless, right now it's "agree upon definitions" time. The futility of not doing so has already been demonstrated at length.
Here are my proposed brief definitions:"
Those definitions have no place in any serious modern discussion of causality, which is why you will not find them employed by modern physicists. They are ancient and medieval terms that have long since been obsoleted.
You can define any words to mean anything you want. There is no god of language. Language is an anarchy that has order only by convention. So you wish to employ those particular definitions, fine, they will lead to the tautology I cite above and/or the invalid argument structures pointed out in great deal many times further above.
If you wish to enter into a serious modern discussion about the origins of existence you will need rid yourself of these obsolete notions.
April 04, 2017 7:53 PM
Stardusty,
Okay. That's how you feel about it. However, in this proposal to Cal to discuss the First Way argument as written, I offered to provide definitions for the main terms Aquinas used - based upon how Aristotle, Aquinas, and modern Thomists use them - so that we are both on the same page as far as interpreting each line. Cal agreed to do so. If Cal agrees with me that my proposed definitions suffice, then we'll proceed.
If you reject the definitions, as I said you are welcome to propose your own and the justifications for using them. If you do as you did and reject the argument entirely, before you even understand it, this discussion is obviously not for you.
Legion of Logic said...
" If you do as you did and reject the argument entirely, before you even understand it, this discussion is obviously not for you."
My understanding of the argument is vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist. I understand the glaring defects of the argument, whereas you, apparently, do not.
Your definitions lead to a tautology at best, as a trade off for one instance of self contradiction. Your definitions do nothing to repair the subsequent begging the question, ad hoc and false assertion, and false dichotomy flaws of this medieval mess of an "argument" for god.
For example, your definition of "act" yields this babble:
2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in an actualized state.
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to in an actualized state.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to in an actualized state, unless it is by a thing that is in an actualized state.
i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in an actualized state, and in this way the wood is moved and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in an actualized state 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.
The above becomes meaningless drivel, but let's just focus one one key item
2d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to in an actualized state, unless it is by a thing that is in an actualized state.
What does that mean? On it's face, nothing. All it says is that a thing in a state causes a thing to be in a state. That by itself is mere babble.
Aquinas does better than that, however, giving the example that clearly demonstrates his intent, that a thing is caused to change by the same SORT of thing. A hot thing causes a cold thing to become hot. That makes sense. That is a reasonable statement at our ordinary level of observation.
But that very reasonable statement is what you apologists are doing mental gymnastics to avoid, because it leads to later self contradictions in the argument.
So you reduce Aquinas to tautological babble to avoid a later self contradiction.
How does that somehow satisfy the theological individual?
April 05, 2017 12:27 PM
SP: "My understanding of the argument is vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist."
Sure.
SP: "Your definitions do nothing to repair the subsequent begging the question, ad hoc and false assertion, and false dichotomy flaws of this medieval mess of an "argument" for god."
If true, it will be demonstrated later. Of course, we won't reach that point until everyone agrees on the definitions to be used.
SP: "What does that mean? On it's face, nothing. All it says is that a thing in a state causes a thing to be in a state. That by itself is mere babble."
On its face, it means that you don't have a clue what the argument is demonstrating with this premise if you think it's meaningless babble, which also indicates you don't have a clue what Aquinas is talking about later on, either. 2d essentially says a potential state of a thing cannot cause change in something else - it takes something in an actualized state. And he has a reason for stating this - but that's later on in the argument.
If you have an alternative definition for "in act" you'd like to share, then share it and justify it based on what Aquinas believed, and not what you believe.
"Only in apologetics land is the suggestion that one needs to clearly define terms in order to examine arguments considered to be missing the point and idiotic."
Only a moron and a proven intellectually dishonest liar, responds to a point one never made while missing the point one has made.
"My understanding of the argument is vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist. I understand the glaring defects of the argument, whereas you, apparently, do not."
Here we have a proven crank and delusional kook, in a state of cognitive dissonance so severe that he bawls out that his understanding of the argument is "vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist", when his "understanding" is no such thing, because it *directly contradicts* what the defenders of the argument say the argument is, something that can be *proved* with an abundance of textual evidence. And then we have Mr. Metzger cheerleading for this idiot.
Truly you cannot make this stuff up.
I said it before and I will say it again: these guys do not need arguments, they need psychiatric help.
Legion of Logic said...
". 2d essentially says a potential state of a thing cannot cause change in something else "
But everything is in some sort of potential state, per your medieval definitions.
"- it takes something in an actualized state."
But everything is also in some sort of actualized state, per your medieval definitions.
" If you have an alternative definition for "in act" you'd like to share, then share it and justify it based on what Aquinas believed,"
I'll do better than that, and already have, many times. I will justify it with the explanation Aquinas provides adjacent to the usage of the term...
***actually hot***
Aquinas does not use the tautological babble asserted on this thread time and again, rather, Aquinas makes a reasonable statement that is sensible at our ordinary level of experience.
Only a thing in actuality can cause a potential thing to change to that actuality.
Only a hot thing can make a cold thing hot.
Only a moving hand can make a staff move.
"Actually" is not a word to be used alone, rather, it is an adverb used to describe something else either really in a particular state or only potentially in a particular state.
Aquinas make this clear in the argument itself. Aquinas uses "actually" with reasonable specificity, in its proper role as an adverb, but that leads him to contradict himself later as his argument inevitably breaks down under that specificity.
To avoid that breakdown you destroy the reasonable specificity Aquinas used, rendering 2d nothing more than a pointless tautology, thus destroying the First Way at that point.
April 06, 2017 4:31 AM
grodrigues said...
"his understanding of the argument is "vastly superior to Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist", when his "understanding" is no such thing, because it *directly contradicts* what the defenders of the argument say the argument is, "
You have that back to front. My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is.
Newsflash, Aristotle was wrong. I understand the arguments of Aristotle vastly better than Aristotle understood his own arguments because I know how wrong he was and he did not have that knowledge.
The same is true of Aquinas, who largely derived his views from Aristotle, thus building on a false foundation.
April 06, 2017 4:56 AM
"You have that back to front. My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is."
And here is how we know Stardusty is a crank and a delusional kook. He explicitly acknowledges that his understanding of the argument contradicts the understanding of its defenders, without realizing that this *just* is the acknowledgment that he is attacking a strawman. Which has always been the point of just about anyone here. But since he is a moron and lacks the most elementary reading skills, in his fantasies he misunderstands the situation as his understanding being superior because he has uncovered the flaws that "Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist" have failed to spot.
Stardusty: "But everything is in some sort of potential state, per your medieval definitions."
There is a huge difference between having a potential state - which is how I would word it - and BEING IN a potential state, which would make it an actualized state. Also, why point out medieval? Does medieval = wrong to you?
Stardusty: "But everything is also in some sort of actualized state, per your medieval definitions."
That's not a problem.
Stardusty: "I'll do better than that, and already have, many times."
No you haven't, and I'll explain why. You say "Only a hot thing can make a cold thing hot." Let's use the example of a match igniting wood.
The point of showing that a lit match causes wood to burn is not "See? The match makes the wood burn because the match is hot." While that is true, it's not the point of the argument. What Aquinas is getting at is in the sentence directly prior to giving the burning wood example - "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality." A match that is not burning has the potential to burn, but that potential is not enough to cause wood to ignite. The potential state has to become an actualized state in order to cause change to the wood. Aquinas is showing that only actualized states can cause change - potential states are unable to cause change.
This is one of the key principles for analyzing essentially ordered causal series later - the mechanical method of cause/effect transference is irrelevant in the context of the argument. Potential states cannot cause change - that's the lesson to take away, because it's one of the core premises for later.
If you can't get that, you have no chance of ever understanding the argument.
>> "My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is"
Because your understanding isn't the same, your understanding is superior. Wow, that's some real nifty logic you got there, Dusty. Your safety helmet must be strapped on extra tight today.
grodrigues said...
" He explicitly acknowledges that his understanding of the argument contradicts the understanding of its defenders, without realizing that this *just* is the acknowledgment that he is attacking a strawman. "
Aristotle was wrong. Aquinas was wrong. Contradicting those who fail to recognize the errors of these long obsoleted authors indicates greater knowledge than Aristotle, Aquinas, or their "modern" defenders had or have.
April 06, 2017 7:48 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "But everything is in some sort of potential state, per your medieval definitions."
" There is a huge difference between having a potential state - which is how I would word it - and BEING IN a potential state, which would make it an actualized state."
You are going in circles, indicating the uselessness of your ancient vernacular.
" Also, why point out medieval? Does medieval = wrong to you?"
In physics and causality, yes. Physics and causality had not been developed at that time. All medieval people were wrong on these subjects.
Stardusty: "But everything is also in some sort of actualized state, per your medieval definitions."
" That's not a problem."
The vagueness of your language leads to tautologies, which most people consider to be a problem in a logical argument.
Stardusty: "I'll do better than that, and already have, many times."
No you haven't, and I'll explain why. You say "Only a hot thing can make a cold thing hot." Let's use the example of a match igniting wood.
" The point of showing that a lit match causes wood to burn is not "See? The match makes the wood burn because the match is hot." While that is true, it's not the point of the argument."
Now you are a mind reader of 7 centuries past.
" What Aquinas is getting at is in the sentence directly prior to giving the burning wood example - "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.""
Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
A match that is not burning has the potential to burn, but that potential is not enough to cause wood to ignite. The potential state has to become an actualized state in order to cause change to the wood.
Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
" Aquinas is showing that only actualized states can cause change - potential states are unable to cause change."
Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
" This is one of the key principles for analyzing essentially ordered causal series later - the mechanical method of cause/effect transference is irrelevant in the context of the argument. Potential states cannot cause change - that's the lesson to take away, because it's one of the core premises for later."
Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
" If you can't get that, you have no chance of ever understanding the argument."
I understand that "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot".
Actually moving is caused by nothing except actually moving. This leads to Aquinas contradicting himself.
April 06, 2017 10:11 AM
SteveK said...
>> "My understanding of Aquinas is superior because it contradicts what the defenders say the argument is"
" Because your understanding isn't the same, your understanding is superior."
No, my understanding is superior because it contradicts those who defend arguments long demonstrated to be grossly erroneous.
I understand much more about Aristotle than Aristotle understood, because I understand how wrong he was, and how wrong his adherents such as Aquinas were, and therefore how wrong "modern" Thomists are.
April 06, 2017 10:19 AM
"You are going in circles, indicating the uselessness of your ancient vernacular."
Your inability to grasp the concept - which is actually a very simple concept - does not make the terminology bad. You simply don't have a clue and don't want to learn.
"In physics and causality, yes."
It's not a physics argument. And since you don't have a clue what the argument is saying, you can't even rate what bearing science would have on it.
"Now you are a mind reader of 7 centuries past."
It's called reading what they wrote to see what they thought - something you obviously can't or won't do. Aquinas wrote far more than just the First Way, you know.
"Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot"."
With emphasis on "actually" and not "hot", something you simply can't grasp.
Look, Stardusty, I know you are psychologically incapable of admitting that a position you hold is wrong, such as the majority of what you have written regarding the First Way. I offered Cal for me and him to agree upon set definitions and then proceeding line by line to see what Aquinas is actually saying.
The reason I keep telling you about your errors is to hopefully get you to stop making them, but you have no interest in exploring issues once you decide you understand them. As such, I'm giving you one last chance to consider the reason I'm telling you where you are wrong (hint: the reason is not because I'm the one who's wrong). If you are unable to stop repeating the same errors that have been pointed out to you over and over, then I'm not going to respond to you any more. I don't say that like I expect it will hurt your feelings or something like that - your opinion doesn't matter to me - but your intentional nonsense is a useless distraction from actual discussion of the First Way, which you frankly have yet to do.
Either admit you are wrong based upon our clear demonstrations that you don't understand anything about the argument, or this is my last post addressing you and I will focus on Cal, who showed evidence that he is capable of being shown something not based on his own opinions.
Legion of Logic said...
SP "In physics and causality, yes."
" It's not a physics argument. And since you don't have a clue what the argument is saying, you can't even rate what bearing science would have on it."
Motion is physics. Causality is physics. Any argument for the origin of existence or the origin of motion or the origin of change of any value is necessarily a physics argument.
SP "Right, "actually hot" is caused by nothing except "actually hot"."
" With emphasis on "actually" and not "hot", something you simply can't grasp."
The word "actually" has no substantial meaning except in relationship to something else. That is what you fail to grasp.
If I say "x is actually" I have made an incomplete and pointless statement. Actually what?
Gasoline is actually. (pointless and incomplete statement)
Gasoline is actually burning. (a meaningful statement)
Something that is actually causes something that is actually. (a tautological, pointless, and hopelessly vague statement)
Something that is actually hot causes something else to become actually hot. (a meaningful statement, which Aquinas made, but no theist here seems able to grasp)
" Look, Stardusty, I know you are psychologically incapable of admitting that a position you hold is wrong,"
You have thus far failed to demonstrate any of my positions as wrong.
" I offered Cal for me and him to agree upon set definitions and then proceeding line by line to see what Aquinas is actually saying."
Ok, you pretty much captured the fuzzy thinking of that era with your definitions.
" The reason I keep telling you about your errors is to hopefully get you to stop making them,"
You have yet to validly point out any errors on my part.
"but you have no interest in exploring issues once you decide you understand them."
I explore by reading the counter arguments, finding the errors in them, and remaining with my present scientifically minded viewpoints absent any good reasons presented to the contrary.
April 07, 2017 12:49 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" As such, I'm giving you one last chance to consider the reason I'm telling you where you are wrong"
You are wrong in attempting to treat the word "actually" in isolation.
The word "actually" is an adverb.
ad·verb
a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc. (e.g., gently, quite, then, there ).
It makes no sense to focus on an adverb in isolation. Adverbs are modifiers of something else.
There is no point in stating that actually things cause things to be actually. That is just babble. It means nothing of any value. At that point one is just burbling words like a toddler.
Actually ***what***? What is it that your adverb is modifying? How is it modifying? What ordered relationship is being described?
Aquinas, to his credit, explains it clearly. Actually hot causes actually hot.
This is not an issue of me failing to grasp your point. It is an issue of you having no sound point for me to grasp. I grasp clearly the words involved and how to make some sort of sense of them.
" (hint: the reason is not because I'm the one who's wrong)."
Actually, yes, you being wrong is very much at the core of your problem here.
" If you are unable to stop repeating the same errors that have been pointed out to you over and over,"
You have yet to validly point out any supposed errors of mine.
" then I'm not going to respond to you any more."
How unfortunate that you may be incapable of learning your fundamental errors.
" I don't say that like I expect it will hurt your feelings or something like that - your opinion doesn't matter to me - but your intentional nonsense is a useless distraction from actual discussion of the First Way, which you frankly have yet to do."
I corrected Haines's notation errors and neither he or anybody else has been able to show how my corrections are themselves in error, so my corrections to the mistakes of the OP stand.
April 07, 2017 12:49 PM
Alrighty. You're incapable of admitting that you've been proven wrong countless times in this thread (you admitting you are wrong is not required proof that you are wrong). You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality). Emphasis does not mean isolation, and since his example was showing the difference between actuality and potential, my emphasis was on the "actually" in "actually hot". You lie and say otherwise.
Inability to recognize how pathetically wrong you are, coupled with outright lying and a blind dogmatic devotion to scientism, makes you not only impossible to reason with, but frankly boring as well. Your broken records of nonsense aren't amusing any longer. I'm done with you.
Legion of Logic said...
" Alrighty. You're incapable of admitting that you've been proven wrong countless times in this thread"
Aristotle was wrong, making Aquinas wrong and Haines wrong and you wrong.
You are in a bubble. In the modern world no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated.
Only a tiny sect of individuals still cling to the bankrupt arguments of Aquinas. Learning will occur when you get out of that tiny sect, get out of your bubble, and open your mind to modern thought.
" (you admitting you are wrong is not required proof that you are wrong)."
I have provided a logical proof that Haines is wrong and Aquinas is wrong. Neither you or Haines has done anything to counter my proof so my proof of the errors of the OP stands.
See
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
" You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality)."
Which means a general state of existence which when applied consistently reduces the First Way to babble (see above references)
" Emphasis does not mean isolation,"
You can't have it both ways. Aquinas gives the clear example of the same sort of actuality being necessary to cause a particular sort of actuality. Aquinas makes sense up to that point, but his clarity in 2d leads to his self contradiction in the further argument.
If you don't like the notion of the same sort of actuality that Aquinas exemplified then you treat "actuality" in isolation which in turn leads to babble.
So, the first way is either self contradictory or it is babble, you may choose, but either way, it is erroneous and so is anybody who thinks it is not.
" and since his example was showing the difference between actuality and potential,"
"Actuality" of a consistent sort, actually hot makes actually hot. You want to get rid of the word "hot" to avoid the later self contradiction, but that turns 2d to babble.
" my emphasis was on the "actually" in "actually hot". You lie and say otherwise."
You can't have it both ways. If you "emphasize" "actuality" then you ignore "hot" and turn 2d into babble. If you include "hot" then you get later self contradictions.
There is no linguistic middle ground where you get to straddle the fence to have your cake and eat it too. You are attempting to invent such a middle ground because both real linguistic alternatives lead to clear errors in the First Way.
" Inability to recognize how pathetically wrong you are, coupled with outright lying and a blind dogmatic devotion to"...
Aristotelian Thomism, a long ago debunked set of propositions, is what you cling to, so very erroneously. Education will occur when you get out of your bubble, leave that tiny sect, and engage in modern thought.
" makes you not only impossible to reason with,"
Haines, you, and everybody here have provided no rational counter arguments to my notation of
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
" I'm done with you."
More's the pity, for you.
Perhaps one day you will reach a tipping point of cognitive capacity such that you can put away the ancient errors of Aristotle and his derivatives such as Aquinas.
The rest of the world has long since moved on. Isn't it past time for you to move on as well?
April 07, 2017 10:16 PM
>> "In the modern world no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated."
Where? How? Don't just make wild claims, show us.
>> " Neither you or Haines has done anything to counter my proof so my proof of the errors of the OP stands."
We have countered your proof - numerous times - so your proof stands defeated. Stop lying.
SteveK said...
>> "In the modern world no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated."
" Where? How? Don't just make wild claims, show us."
First, your question is ambiguous as to subject.
As for the subject of a serious study of causality my favorite starting point is "Against Measurement" by J S Bell.
http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/bell.pdf
Here is a commentary on Bell
http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
Obviously, Thomist language and argumentation are absent from those papers. It would be like discussing demon possession in a medical research paper. Thomist language and argumentation have no place in any serious study of causality.
As for debunking Aristotle that was done by Newton who built upon Galileo. Work has continued with the advent of modern physics some 120 years ago. You can start with any modern university calculus based physics book to show how wrong Aristotle was.
As for me debunking the First Way I used notation and argumentation, restated in this series of posts.
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
The fact you even have to ask such a question shows you are in a tiny bubble, an unschooled sect, uneducated in the findings of an entire century up to this day. You are in some sort of cognitive time warp.
Aristotelian/Thomist causality is of interest only as a quaint historical study of how people long ago tried to make sense of the world and arrived at a variety of false notions. If you don't know that all I can suggest is you go get an education.
April 08, 2017 1:34 PM
SteveK said...
>> " Neither you or Haines has done anything to counter my proof so my proof of the errors of the OP stands."
" We have countered your proof - numerous times - so your proof stands defeated. Stop lying."
Please post the date and time of your counter notation regarding my notation of
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
April 08, 2017 1:35 PM
Please look for the counter arguments yourself.
Regarding the causality issue, quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong. If it doesn't directly relate to the First Way then don't quote it.
SteveK said...
" Please look for the counter arguments yourself."
I already have. They are all scattered bits and pieces that quickly fizzle. No theist has demonstrated the slightest capacity for a sustained, on subject, rational discourse in over 900 posts.
The "counter arguments" quickly devolve into theists doing nothing better than name calling about phantom points they imagine they have made.
I organized my counter arguments and even provided detailed commentary and keys to my notation. No theist has demonstrated the mental capacity to engage in a logical refutation of my organized exposure of the First Way as self contradictory, begging the question, false premise, ad hoc, false dichotomy, non sequitur, invalid logic and therefore unsound.
The First Way is a disastrous mess that has no place in any modern serious discussion of causality. Only a tiny sect in an uneducated time warp bubble cling to these erroneous notions.
" Regarding the causality issue, quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong."
Read a medical research paper and quote the part that proves demon possession is wrong.
Demon possession and Thomist arguments are just medieval superstitions. No modern scientific paper even bothers to address such nonsense. Such medieval absurdities simply do not appear in modern works because they are utterly irrelevant to any serious modern study of the subject.
" If it doesn't directly relate to the First Way then don't quote it."
The very language of the Aquinas is obsolete and irrelevant to any serious modern study of causality. The relevance is that the total absence of Thomist language and argumentation shows the utter irrelevancy of Aquinas.
April 08, 2017 8:44 PM
Me: "quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong"
Dusty: "I'd rather continue to bluff my way through this conversation"
SteveK said...
" Me: "quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong"
Dusty: "I'd rather continue to bluff my way through this conversation""
SteveK "Quote the section in the physics paper that proves angels cannot dance on the head of a pin"
Me "No modern article bothers to discuss such absurdities. Angels dancing on the head of a pin are irrelevant to any modern physics discussion because angels dancing on the head of a pin is just an old superstition"
SteveK "See!!! Angels DO dance on the head of a pin, you lying bluffer!!!"
April 09, 2017 12:18 PM
Cal,
If you happen to read this, I stopped responding to Stardusty because he has displayed no ability to consider something outside of his own opinion, even if that opinion is wrong. You have said you agree with his take on the First Way, a take which I have stated was humiliating in how wrong it was due to not even addressing the point of the argument. Stardusty, as predicted, incorrectly claims no one has demonstrated him to be wrong at any point.
If you would like to find out why I say Stardusty is repeatedly embarrassing himself, let me know. One piece of the argument at a time, using the definitions I proposed, I will explain at length. Stardusty will try to leap in and claim that my definitions are blah blah blah or will inevitably lead to blah blah blah, but step by step, without jumping forward or skipping sections, we will learn if those objections are true. Once you have seen what the argument is actually saying - and it has nothing to do with being some sort of proto-physics argument - then I ask you to evaluate it fairly. If you still reject it, cool. If, by understanding it and still pointing out flaws you manage to make me discard it, even cooler. I don't like believing incorrect notions and like having them pointed out.
But to point out flaws, one has to understand what the argument is even talking about first, which is why Stardusty has yet to scratch the surface of showing it to be a bad argument, and I will happily demonstrate that fact if you agree to proceed.
Dusty: "no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated"
Dusty: "As for the subject of a serious study of causality my favorite starting point is "Against Measurement"
Me (referencing the claim in bold text): "quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong"
Dusty: "I'd rather continue to bluff my way through this conversation"
Blogger SteveK said...
Dusty: "no serious study of causality employs Aristotelian/Thomist language because their errors have been long ago demonstrated"
Dusty: "As for the subject of a serious study of causality my favorite starting point is "Against Measurement"
Me (referencing the claim in bold text): "quote the part from the causality paper that proves the First Way is somehow wrong"
Dusty: "I'd rather continue to bluff my way through this conversation"
There are many old superstitions not mentioned in that paper. Key items relevant to a modern serious study of causality are mentioned. A vast array of ancient superstitions are not mentioned. The paper is a serious modern discussion of causality, not a direct rebuttal of myriad superstitions.
I am sorry you lack the education in this subject needed to have any appreciation for what Bell said or what his commenters say about his work.
April 10, 2017 12:32 PM
Nowhere in that paper have any errors of the First Way been demonstrated. You are posturing and bluffing. Maybe lying too. You've done it before.
SteveK said...
" Nowhere in that paper have any errors of the First Way been demonstrated."
You say that because you lack the education to understand the paper at all. How unfortunate for you.
April 10, 2017 9:39 PM
SteveK said...
" Nowhere in that paper have any errors of the First Way been demonstrated. You are posturing and bluffing. Maybe lying too. You've done it before."
This is perhaps a more accessible paper in that it discusses Bell and various subjects relevant to causality.
http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_local_causality.pdf
Per relativity causal influences propagate continually no faster than c. A schematic can be drawn showing the intersection of the forward light cone and backward light cone. Other ideas of causality come from the Copenhagen interpretation, the necessity of observation, and the so-called collapse of the waveform.
EPR proposed hidden variables to account for certain causes and effects, but Bell wrote an inequality that seems to rule out such hidden variables at c. Einstein chided "spooky action at a distance" but one interpretation of Bell is that some sort of causal influences might propagate faster than light. To discuss this further Bell introduced "beables".
Bell was particularly opposed to the notion of measurement, hence the title of one of his papers "Against Measurement".
These are the topics of serious discussion of causality. They show Aquinas to be wrong at every step.
Aquinas was wrong because he had no notion of relativity, quantum mechanics, c, the 2 slit experiment, light cones, or any of the experiments and mathematical formulations relevant to the serious study of causation.
These papers, and every such paper, show clearly that Aquinas did not have a clue and was wrong in his terminology and his analysis.
April 10, 2017 9:39 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" If you would like to find out why I say Stardusty is repeatedly embarrassing himself, let me know. One piece of the argument at a time, using the definitions I proposed, I will explain at length."
What are you waiting for?
If you have some argument based your definitions why don't you just post it?
The OP posted his argument. I posted mine. Why are you keeping it under your hat?
April 09, 2017 9:45 PM
>> "They show Aquinas to be wrong at every step."
Nowhere does the First Way say *anything* about what you just referenced. This is just more atheist posturing on your part - either that or you don't understand the argument. Which one is true I'm not exactly sure, but neither one looks good for you.
Steve: "Nowhere does the First Way say *anything* about what you just referenced."
Read the Bell paper more closely. It clearly disproves ideas like train car movement being caused by the engine or cold temperature causing water to freeze, thus the point of Aquinas' argument is, like, so totally wrong.
Stardusty: "What are you waiting for?"
The offer was to Cal. He has yet to agree to the definitions I proposed. I would offer it to you if you agreed to use the definitions I proposed, and to discuss it one step at a time with me rather than leaping all over the place predicting what you believe will be failures in the argument. Can you do those two things?
SteveK said...
>> "They show Aquinas to be wrong at every step."
" Nowhere does the First Way say *anything* about what you just referenced."
Exactly. The First Way is devoid of any argumentation that has any place in a modern serious discussion of causality.
April 11, 2017 8:12 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" I would offer it to you if you agreed to use the definitions I proposed, "
I agree that those are the definitions you have for certain terms and that they seem to be very much what Aristotle or Aquinas would have defined them to be.
I do not agree that those definitions are entirely meaningful or a sound basis for a serious modern discussion of causality. Your definitions do seem to express the thinking of ancient and medieval times.
"and to discuss it one step at a time with me rather than leaping all over the place predicting what you believe will be failures in the argument."
I tried to take a most basic first step with you but did not get far. Your definition of "act" or "actually" as a noun is particularly troubling. I could find no reference to this usage.
"Actually" is an adverb. I tried to go one step at a time but you would not address the fact that you cannot have it both ways. What you call "emphasizing" one word is functionally ignoring its necessarily associated word.
" Can you do those two things?"
Already tried. I have found that in discussing such things with theists I frequently encounter an individual who will make what he seems to think is an airtight argument, such that when I point out its many flaws his conclusion is that I either did not read it, or did not understand it, or I am lying about it, owing to the "obvious fact" that the argument is so utterly correct.
It does not seem to occur to this sort that I have a very great deal of experience and education on the subjects I am discussing and that I simply found errors in the argument.
So, can you prepare yourself mentally for having the errors in your argument decisively exposed?
April 11, 2017 9:18 AM
Stardusty: "I agree that those are the definitions you have for certain terms and that they seem to be very much what Aristotle or Aquinas would have defined them to be."
Indeed. And that's my point. I want to analyze the argument as they presented it, based upon what they were getting at, and once their own thoughts are agreed upon, THEN critique it. It doesn't do the argument justice to critique it based upon things they aren't actually talking about. It's not a science argument, so judging it based upon current physics models is not necessarily appropriate.
Stardusty: "I do not agree that those definitions are entirely meaningful or a sound basis for a serious modern discussion of causality."
If I was going to have a scientific discussion of causality, I also would not use the First Way. One can speak of pretty much any topic without it being a scientific discussion, so there must be judgment involved as to whether science is appropriate to invoke.
Stardusty: "I tried to take a most basic first step with you but did not get far. Your definition of "act" or "actually" as a noun is particularly troubling."
"Actuality" is the noun form. "Actually" is an adverb, "actual" is used as an adjective. But they are forms of the same concept, much like "hot", "heated", "heat", etc. "In act" means something is actual, it has actuality, it is actually a given state rather than potentially that state.
Stardusty: "What you call "emphasizing" one word is functionally ignoring its necessarily associated word."
Not really. "Actually hot" in a discussion of actual vs potential would be emphasizing the adverb and using the "hot" as an example of a state. It would work equally well with any other state - actually alive, actually red, actually soft, actually tasty. The point is that it is actually the state in question, and not potentially that state. In a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is significant not because it is a ball, but because it is blue. Aquinas' example is significant not because it is hot, but because it is actually so, rather than potentially.
Stardusty: "I frequently encounter an individual who will make what he seems to think is an airtight argument, such that when I point out its many flaws his conclusion is that I either did not read it, or did not understand it, or I am lying about it, owing to the "obvious fact" that the argument is so utterly correct."
This could apply equally well to me, Cal, or yourself, so that's why I wanted to proceed a step at a time with Cal so that there is an agreed upon piece at a time being built upon. It does seem rather futile after this much time, but apparently I've got no life.
Stardusty: "So, can you prepare yourself mentally for having the errors in your argument decisively exposed?"
Over the years I've been disabused of many notions, but namely hardcore conservative political positions, an inerrant King James Bible, and young earth creationism. I single those out because I was emotionally invested in all three, but facts overrode my feelings.
I'm not at all emotionally invested in the First Way, I simply do not believe it has been refuted. So if you or Cal were to successfully refute it, thank you for helping me discard a poor argument. I just don't accept refutations that I don't believe are touching upon the point of the argument.
Legion,
>> "If I was going to have a scientific discussion of causality, I also would not use the First Way. One can speak of pretty much any topic without it being a scientific discussion, so there must be judgment involved as to whether science is appropriate to invoke. "
Everyone knows this is true. Dusty's blunder reminds me of this article about Lawrence Krauss making a similar error in judgement. I quoted a snipped of the article below.
Dusty claims there's only one legitimate way to talk about causality, and that way is using scientific terms. This is demonstrably false.
"That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful."
"Actually hot" in a discussion of actual vs potential would be emphasizing the adverb and using the "hot" as an example of a state. It would work equally well with any other state - actually alive, actually red, actually soft, actually tasty. The point is that it is actually the state in question,"
Actually alive causes actually alive
Actually red causes actually red
Actually soft causes actually soft
Actually tasty causes actually tasty
Actually blue causes actually blue
Actually hot causes actually hot
No, these do not "work equally well". Some make sense, some are gibberish. "Emphasizing" doesn't work because it ignores the associated words that render the statement either meaningful or alternatively gibberish.
" Aquinas' example is significant not because it is hot"
You are exactly wrong. You could not be more wrong. The sort of actuality is critical to the meaningfulness of the sentence. Aquinas did not say "actually soft causes actually soft", because that is gibberish.
By "emphasizing" "actually", which is the word used by the OP in the example sentence, and then generalizing, you render that aspect of the First Way to be gibberish.
Stardusty: "You are exactly wrong. You could not be more wrong."
I'm exactly right. And the reason I'm exactly right is because that is what Aquinas was getting at.
You still don't understand what he is trying to point out - the difference between a thing's potentiality and a thing's actuality, as it relates to having causal power. The mechanical reason a match can cause wood to burn is indeed because the match is hot, as you say and as I agree, but his point is that a match has the potential to burn (and cause burning) but that potential is not enough to cause burning - it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning. Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning. Because the point is differentiating actual and potential as causal agents.
Your other examples are ridiculous only because that is not how English is spoken and because not everything is identical to heat in causal ability. Softness doesn't transmit like heat, but softness can have other effects - like a good night's sleep. A pillow that is potentially soft, but not actually soft, will likely not result in good sleep. Red does not "cause red", but no one will stop for a light that is potentially red but is actually green. Food is potentially tasty, but it won't cause me to eat it unless it is actually tasty.
That's the point of using heat as his example - the difference between actual and potential as it relates to causal power.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" You still don't understand what he is trying to point out"
You don't understand the meaning of the words that are written.
*But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act.*
* 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.*
The full meaning of those 2 sentences taken in their entirety is clear. I understand their meaning because I am willing to read them in their entirety.
You insist on "emphasizing" one part of the sentence, thereby ignoring the full meaning of what was written by Aquinas, turning his originally reasonable observation into gibberish. But I somehow don't understand things because I do not accept your gibberish interpretation of a plainly reasonable observation.
"it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning."
Yes, only a moving thing causes motion, clearly. You say it, but you seem unable to hold that thought in your mind beyond the end of the sentence.
" Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning."
Even you are forced to use "actually" and "hot" together in order to form a meaningful sentence. You use all caps in an attempt to divert attention away from the word "hot" but you are forced to include the word "hot" else your sentence would be gibberish.
Try one of your words that "work equally well"
**" Thus, something that is ACTUALLY soft - as opposed to POTENTIALLY soft - can cause soft."**
Nope, that doesn't work at all, it is just nonsense. "Emphasizing" doesn't work. Reading the entire sentence is required.
Clearly, you have a deep seated need to deny the obvious in order to avoid a later self contradiction. In that process of denial you render Aquinas gibberish.
" Your other examples are ridiculous only because that is not how English is spoken and because not everything is identical to heat in causal ability."
Exactly. "Emphasizing" doesn't work.
You keep telling me what you think "Aquinas was getting at" but I can read what Aquinas was getting at because he gives us a clear example for the obvious purpose of explaining what he was getting at.
An example explains. Aquinas explained what he was getting at with his example. I am willing to take him at his word as he wrote it in his example that he chose. I am not willing to throw out key elements of his explanation, as you insist on doing, thus turning his carefully crafted example into gibberish.
April 13, 2017 11:21 PM
SteveK said...
" Dusty claims there's only one legitimate way to talk about causality, and that way is using scientific terms. This is demonstrably false.
"That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful."
Idiotic drivel. The question of the origin of existence, the origin of motion, the origin of cause is a question of fundamentals, the very most fundamental things there are. The "analogies" provided are stupid irrelevancies to a discussion of these fundamentals.
Cosmology immediately turns to fundamental physics. The very largest is dependent on the very smallest. Science is how we make progress learning about both.
April 12, 2017 7:55 AM
Stardusty: "You don't understand the meaning of the words that are written."
Yes I do, which is why I'm trying repeatedly to get you to understand. It's not difficult, yet you keep missing the point of the argument.
"But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act"
Exactly. Only a thing in act (an actualized state, not a potential state) can cause change. That is indeed what Aquinas is trying to get across to you, and you're missing it.
* 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.*
Quite right. And as you say, "actually" without something to modify makes no sense, thus he uses an example of something that can be both a potential and actual state to make his point about only something in act (in an actualized state) being able to cause change. Much like, in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is noteworthy because it is blue, not because it is a ball, even though there has to be something that is blue in order to make the point since you can't have simply blue. It's very simple, I'm astounded you still can't understand it.
Stardusty: "The full meaning of those 2 sentences taken in their entirety is clear. I understand their meaning because I am willing to read them in their entirety."
The first sentence is completely accurate. The second is the exact opposite of accurate. You obviously are still missing the point. It's very simple - when you agree that Aquinas is comparing actual and potential states, as relating to their ability to cause change, you will have understood the purpose of the example. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
Stardusty: "You insist on "emphasizing" one part of the sentence, thereby ignoring the full meaning of what was written by Aquinas, turning his originally reasonable observation into gibberish."
And you insist on ignoring my explanations as to why I am emphasizing the "actually" over the "hot", because the "hot" is just an example of an actualized state being able to cause change, as opposed to a potential state which cannot cause change. What you call "gibberish" is the correct explanation that you are by all appearances incapable of comprehending, which is very curious since it's extremely simple.
Stardusty: "Yes, only a moving thing causes motion, clearly. You say it, but you seem unable to hold that thought in your mind beyond the end of the sentence."
The only person forgetting things is you - Aquinas says that only something in act (in an actualized state) can cause a potential to become actualized (change). He clearly makes the point that it has to be actualized as opposed to potential in order to cause change.
Stardusty: "Even you are forced to use "actually" and "hot" together in order to form a meaningful sentence."
It's fascinating that you think this is some sort of a point. Of course I can't use "actually" without something to be "actually" in order to give an example. That's how English works. However, in the phrase "actually hot", I most certainly can and should (if I want to be correct) emphasize the importance of the "actually" over the "hot", since that's obviously the point of the argument. Much like in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball has greater emphasis on "blue" than "ball". It is very simple. If the definition of "emphasis" is confusing you, look it up. ("Emphasis" is the noun form of "emphasize", by the way.)
Stardusty: "Thus, something that is ACTUALLY soft - as opposed to POTENTIALLY soft - can cause soft."
This is the problem when you don't accept the way languages work (no language god!!!). No one would say "soft causes soft" in any possible context (except you), as I have already explained at length in my previous post. Very interesting that you ignored my response to this nonsense. I can only think of one reason you would ignore it, and it doesn't reflect kindly on you.
Also, nowhere did Aquinas assert that only something in "state x" can cause "state x". Your hilarious "soft causing soft" gibberish is apparently some sort of mistaken understanding of what he was getting at.
Stardusty: "Exactly. "Emphasizing" doesn't work"
No, but rather "Exactly. My attempt at countering you was an embarrassing failure." You know why your attempt to counter was an embarrassing failure? Because emphasizing "actually" in "actually hot" is not a problem to anyone but you. Much like in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is significant not because it is a ball, but because it is blue. It's very simple.
Stardusty: "but I can read what Aquinas was getting at because he gives us a clear example for the obvious purpose of explaining what he was getting at."
If you can, you obviously have chosen to delay doing so, since you have yet to understand it.
Stardusty: "An example explains. Aquinas explained what he was getting at with his example. I am willing to take him at his word as he wrote it in his example that he chose. I am not willing to throw out key elements of his explanation, as you insist on doing, thus turning his carefully crafted example into gibberish."
Only the first two sentences here have any bearing on reality.
Legion of Logic said...
" It's very simple - when you agree that Aquinas is comparing actual and potential states, as relating to their ability to cause change, you will have understood the purpose of the example."
An actual state is meaningless without the reference to what sort of actual state is being exemplified. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
April 14, 2017 8:31 AM
"Also, nowhere did Aquinas assert that only something in "state x" can cause "state x". "
Wrong, he makes a statement of "only" as a principle and then an example of the principle. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
"Your hilarious "soft causing soft" gibberish is apparently some sort of mistaken understanding of what he was getting at."
You are the one who made that mistake. If you disagree, you don't have a clue.
"Not really. "Actually hot" in a discussion of actual vs potential would be emphasizing the adverb and using the "hot" as an example of a state. It would work equally well with any other state - actually alive, actually red, actually soft, actually tasty.
April 12, 2017 7:24 AM"
You are the one who asserted all these other sorts of "actually" "would work equally well".
Now you call the application of your own words "gibberish". At last we agree.
Stardusty: "An actual state is meaningless without the reference to what sort of actual state is being exemplified."
Examples illustrate the point, but the concept can be discussed even not using an example. It's pretty simple. Actual states can cause change, potential states cannot. Look, no reference yet still true.
Stardusty: "Wrong, he makes a statement of "only" as a principle and then an example of the principle."
And the "only" is "only something in an actualized state can cause change", not "an effect can only be caused by something exhibiting the same trait as the effect". Red drinks cause me heartburn, that doesn't mean heartburn is a red drink. Bright lights cause blindness, that doesn't mean blindness is bright. The example demonstrates that actualized states, and not potential states, cause all change. It's very clear and very simple.
And we know that is the purpose of his example because the "thus" links the example to the prior sentence, which states that change is caused by something in an actualized state. He flat out says what he is providing an example of. So if your understanding of his example does not align with the sentence prior to the example, linked with a "thus", then you're simply wrong.
Thus, you're simply wrong.
Stardusty: "You are the one who made that mistake."
And yet I understand it and you don't.
Stardusty: "You are the one who asserted all these other sorts of "actually" "would work equally well"."
Indeed they do work. All of those things can cause change, so long as they are actualized and not potential, but not in the same way that heat does. Heat transfers, the others do not. Pretty simple stuff.
It is your application of them that is gibberish. Soft does not cause soft, particularly since soft isn't even a noun. Softness can cause other things, however, so softness as an actualized state is indeed capable as a causal agent, much like heat.
Pretty simple.
I have been away but I'm starting to read through where I last left off, so I'll just start commenting from there:
Grod: "... in his fantasies he misunderstands the situation as his understanding being superior because he has uncovered the flaws that "Aquinas, you, Feser, or any other Thomist apologist" have failed to spot."
In the case of your modern day apologists it's more an exploring the curious inability to acknowledge obvious flaws.
The best explanation seems to be that apologists have moored their thinking to a set of false premises -- the existence of god, the truth of the bible, and the understanding of ancient thinkers -- instead of logic, consistency, a foundational philosophical approach, and skepticism (including intersubjectivity, empiricism, and a working understanding of biases).
So that's the real situation. Apologists just start off on the wrong foot, and instead of acknowledging all the indications that they've been misled they invent reasons why these indications should be ignored.
I blame pride.
Legion: "There is a huge difference between having a potential state - which is how I would word it - and BEING IN a potential state, which would make it an actualized state. Also, why point out medieval? Does medieval = wrong to you?"
I don't think you've through this through.
I asked you upthread, "How can a thing be a thing if it has no state?"
I didn't see an answer to that question.
And I think if you start to really try and figure that one out, I think you'll start to see some problems with the language you're using.
Here's an old writer's adage about language: If you find that you can't make your terms clear, then it's usually an indication that you're not thinking clearly.
In other words -- don't blame the words when it's the thoughts that are muddled.
Legion: "This is one of the key principles for analyzing essentially ordered causal series later - the mechanical method of cause/effect transference is irrelevant in the context of the argument. Potential states cannot cause change - that's the lesson to take away, because it's one of the core premises for later."
Why isn't it relevant that the method for causing a motionless thing to move requires that the thing causing the moving must be moving itself?
If it's not relevant to the argument, then why does the argument tell us that only a (mechanically) moving thing can cause another thing to move?
If it's not relevant, how can one ever determine that something causes another thing to move? In other words, if things just move (no mechanical explanation need apply), then the premise that all things are moved by another is undemonstrated, and the argument fails on itself right there.
Is it possible that the First Mover is a relic because of these and other failings?
Legion: "Your inability to grasp the concept - which is actually a very simple concept - does not make the terminology bad. You simply don't have a clue and don't want to learn."
You are using muddled terms to describe muddled concepts. Our pointing out these problems to you is not a case of our not having a clue or wanting to learn. You have that exactly wrong.
Legion: "It's not a physics argument. And since you don't have a clue what the argument is saying, you can't even rate what bearing science would have on it."
If you think the argument can't be analyzed using precise scientific terms you are talking about a (meaningless) metaphysical argument.
Woo is not a persuasive argument, and thus you are conceding that you are convinced because you are gullible.
Cal,
Went back and found the section about states. I said "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been actualized" as a brief working definition of potential for this discussion would suffice."
Your response to that: "So, to avoid confusion, potential = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that has no state? How can a thing be a thing if it has no state? This terminology doesn't seem to make sense."
Using water as an example again, let's say there was no ice anywhere on the planet. All of it had melted. Even if there is no ice, ice still remains a potential state of water. Water still has the intrinsic capacity to become ice given the right conditions. And ice remains a potential state of water until the ice is realized as an actualized state, then it is no longer potential.
Another definition of "in act" or "actualized" could be something like "an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is realized, currently in effect, etc, as opposed to potential states, which are intrinsic capacities within a thing that are not realized, not currently in effect, etc.
Cal: "Why isn't it relevant that the method for causing a motionless thing to move requires that the thing causing the moving must be moving itself?
If it's not relevant to the argument, then why does the argument tell us that only a (mechanically) moving thing can cause another thing to move?"
Because here is the relevant line: ""But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act"
That is to say, it is not possible that a thing change (as Aquinas describes it, motion is a potential state becoming actualized, i.e. change) except by a cause that is actualized, and not potential. The wood, for example, will burn if heat is applied to it. A match can make the wood burn, but only if the match is in an actualized state (a burning match) that can produce such an effect. The mere fact that burning is a potential state of a match is not enough to produce burning wood - the match has to be in an actualized state of burning to cause burning. Aquinas is trying to point out the difference between a thing's potential and actual states, as it relates to having causal power.
Taking Stardusty's soft(ness) example, softness doesn't cause softness, but it can cause other things - a good night's sleep, injury prevention from falling, mockery at my unmasculine frame, and so on. That's another type of change that Aristotle and Aquinas would include, which is why we have argued that mechanical motion is not the point, but rather the question and answer "Is a thing's potential state capable of causing change? No."
Cal: "If you think the argument can't be analyzed using precise scientific terms you are talking about a (meaningless) metaphysical argument."
How about this:
Wife: "Honey, do you love me?"
Husband: "Central dopamine pathways are mediating my partner preference behavior, while vasopressin in my ventral pallidum and oxytocin in my nucleus accumbens and paraventricular hypothalamic nucleus mediate my partner preference and attachment behaviors. Furthermore, I experience increased activity in the foci in my media insula and part of my anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with feelings of euphoria."
Yay science, or yay sleeping on the couch?
It's not that the argument can't be analyzed with input from science, but rather that one should recognize when it is appropriate to invoke science. If the discussion is not a scientific discussion, then perhaps science isn't appropriate. It doesn't have to be scientific in order to be true or useful. And I'd be happy to rate the First Way as it relates to science, but first I'd want everyone on the same page as to what the argument is even saying. I don't believe anything in science has disproved anything in the First Way. Science sure hasn't proven that Aquinas is wrong that something being able to potentially burn is not enough to cause burning, for example. Even though potential states and actualized states are not a scientific concept exactly, it's still true.
Legion of Logic said...
" Examples illustrate the point, but the concept can be discussed even not using an example. It's pretty simple. Actual states can cause change, potential states cannot. Look, no reference yet still true."
Real things really do stuff, unreal things don't do stuff. Oh look, what a profound truth statement!
You have reduced Aquinas to pointless statements of the sort "stuff makes stuff do stuff".
An example is meant to be applicable to the principle. If the example is not applicable to the principle it is not an example of the principle.
Principle:
*But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is in act*
Example of the principle:
* 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.*
Example applied to the principle:
*But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to an actually burning or hot thing, unless it is by a thing that is burning in act*
That makes sense. That follows our ordinary observations. That is a meaningful observation.
Despite your claim that other sorts of act "would work equally well" they don't, rather, becoming "gibberish" by your own estimation.
Stardusty: "You are the one who asserted all these other sorts of "actually" "would work equally well"."
" Indeed they do work. All of those things can cause change,"
Soft causes soft when "soft" is used as the sort of actuality instead of "hot" or any unspecified sort of actually, you now claim. How absurd.
" It is your application of them that is gibberish. Soft does not cause soft, "
Now you change your mind, again. You are very confused.
April 15, 2017 5:48 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" A match can make the wood burn, but only if the match is in an actualized state (a burning match) that can produce such an effect."
You finally get it!!!
" the match has to be in an actualized state of burning to cause burning."
Bravo!!!
You finally get it, "actually" by itself is pointless. The sort of actual state must be specified.
What you probably don't realize is that at this point the word "actually" becomes redundant, since once we say X is in state Y there is no new information added by saying X is actually in state Y. If X were not actually in state Y then X simply would not be in state Y.
But let's not worry too much about the redundancy of "actually" in an analytical statement, and just focus on your conceptual breakthrough here.
" the match has to be in an actualized state of burning to cause burning."
Yessssss!!!
An actualized state of wet, or an actualized state of being in a box, or an actualized state of being broken, or any other actualized state is not sufficient.
Merely stating an act causes act is meaningless. The sort of actualized state, or more simply, the sort of state, is critical to what is caused.
April 16, 2017 8:27 AM
Stardusty: "Real things really do stuff, unreal things don't do stuff. Oh look, what a profound truth statement!"
Actualized things do stuff, potential things do not do stuff. This is the closest to understanding that you have yet to achieve, so well done. Your "profound truth statement" reference is based upon not only your failure to take into consideration the time period - and thus philosophical points of view - in which it was written, but also your ignorance as to what the argument is getting at. Aquinas lays this out for a reason, not to be profound, but to be illustrative later.
Stardusty: "Despite your claim that other sorts of act "would work equally well" they don't, rather, becoming "gibberish" by your own estimation."
The gibberish occurs when you, for no reason whatsoever, try to pretend that the adjective soft causing the adjective soft is the same idea as the noun heat causing the noun heat. No intelligent person would say this. Softness - the noun form, which you have yet to use for some reason - cannot cause cause softness, because softness as an mechanical trait is not a form of radiation like heat. However, much like heat, softness can cause effects as I have listed and you have ignored. It's a very simple concept, so I'm curious why you're struggling so much with it.
Stardusty: "You finally get it!!!...Bravo!...focus on your conceptual breakthrough here."
What's funny here is this is what we have been saying for months now. Repeatedly, we have said that something simply being actual is not sufficient to cause any effect - the effect has to follow from the cause, but the cause has to be actual rather than potential. We have been saying this for a very long time now. Very interesting that you are ignoring that inconvenient fact and calling this a breakthrough.
Stardusty: "What you probably don't realize is that at this point the word "actually" becomes redundant, since once we say X is in state Y there is no new information added by saying X is actually in state Y. If X were not actually in state Y then X simply would not be in state Y."
Aquinas is trying to highlight the differences between actual states and potential states as it relates to causal power. It would sort of defeat the purpose to drop one of the things you are trying to differentiate.
Stardusty: "An actualized state of wet, or an actualized state of being in a box, or an actualized state of being broken, or any other actualized state is not sufficient."
Indeed, as we have been saying all along. But Aquinas is not trying to say what sort of actualized state causes burning - he is trying to point out that something that can potentially burn will not cause burning, but that it must be actually burning. Emphasis on being actualized as opposed to potential. As we have been saying for months now.
Stardusty: "Merely stating an act causes act is meaningless."
Not when you are making the point that something has to be actualized, and not potential, in order to cause an effect. As Aquinas is doing. The wood on fire is an example of this.
Think of it this way. You are fixating on the burning. A match can potentially burn and actually burn. Which of those will cause wood to burn? The latter. What is the difference between the latter and the former? The latter's burning is actualized, the former's is only potential. That is the point Aquinas is making, and he has a reason for doing so that is shown later on.
Stardusty: "The sort of actualized state, or more simply, the sort of state, is critical to what is caused."
Yes, which is why we have been saying it all along. For example, my post on March 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM: " 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."
We have never said that "actualized" is the only requirement to cause an effect. But whatever is required to cause an effect, that cause must be actualized and not potential. That's the point of this line of the First Way, and the example of the burning wood.
Legion: "Look, Stardusty, I know you are psychologically incapable of admitting that a position you hold is wrong, such as the majority of what you have written regarding the First Way."
Psychological projection! Drink!
Legion: "I offered Cal for me and him to agree upon set definitions and then proceeding line by line to see what Aquinas is actually saying."
Yes. And I think this exercise will help you understand better why the First Way falls apart if an attempt is made to clarify its terms. This is not a feature for an argument; it is a bug.
Legion: "The reason I keep telling you about your errors is to hopefully get you to stop making them, but you have no interest in exploring issues once you decide you understand them. As such, I'm giving you one last chance to consider the reason I'm telling you where you are wrong (hint: the reason is not because I'm the one who's wrong)."
If I had a nickel for every time an apologist told me I was wrong about the faults found in the First Way without actually demonstrating what those faults are...
Legion: " If you are unable to stop repeating the same errors that have been pointed out to you over and over, then I'm not going to respond to you any more. I don't say that like I expect it will hurt your feelings or something like that - your opinion doesn't matter to me - but your intentional nonsense is a useless distraction from actual discussion of the First Way, which you frankly have yet to do."
This is false; no apologist here has shown a meaningful response to the faults pointed out in the First Way. Mostly, it's just a baseless assertion that the real reason is found in some unspecified elsewhere. This is what all frauds and hucksters have to resort to when their claims are closely examined.
Legion: "You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality). Emphasis does not mean isolation, and since his example was showing the difference between actuality and potential, my emphasis was on the "actually" in "actually hot". You lie and say otherwise."
So, you think we should read "actually hot" as "actuality hot." ? How does this refute the criticism pointed out umpteen times -- that in the First Way, a commonsense reading is that only a moving thing causes a thing without motion to move, only a hot thing causes something else to become hot, etc. ?
In your definitions, I think you should work on clarifying what you mean by "actually," if we are to understand that term as "actuality."
Legion: "If you would like to find out why I say Stardusty is repeatedly embarrassing himself, let me know. One piece of the argument at a time, using the definitions I proposed, I will explain at length."
I'm not holding my breath. You've had lots and lots and lots of comments to provide a detailed response, and you haven't offered one yet. Instead you seem to project the failings of the First Way (and the inability of apologists to grasp these failings, and to form coherent thoughts) onto its critics.
Look over all these comments and try to find what you consider the best apologist comment here -- the exemplar of what apologists keep on falsely claiming they have provided in response to the detailed criticisms offered by SD (and sometimes elaborated by me).
Or do you agree that no apologist has done that here yet, and that you are now willing to do so? If so, proceed.
SD: "What are you waiting for?"
Legion: "The offer was to Cal. He has yet to agree to the definitions I proposed. I would offer it to you if you agreed to use the definitions I proposed, and to discuss it one step at a time with me rather than leaping all over the place predicting what you believe will be failures in the argument."
I didn't realize you were waiting for my approval of your definitions before proceeding; I thought you were doing your best to clarify the muddled terms used in the argument. I pointed out where the definitions you provided still seemed muddled, and haven't heard back from you on that, so I assumed you were still working out how to tinker with those terms before you started to lay out your refutations of the criticisms offered.
Legion: "If I was going to have a scientific discussion of causality, I also would not use the First Way. One can speak of pretty much any topic without it being a scientific discussion, so there must be judgment involved as to whether science is appropriate to invoke."
Science is the rigorous examination of claims using precise and meaningful descriptions and terms. If you think the First Way cannot withstand that process, then I think you should realize that it is a bad argument.
Science doesn't make the First Way a bad argument. But it sure does uncover that fact, now, doesn't it?
Legion: "The mechanical reason a match can cause wood to burn is indeed because the match is hot, as you say and as I agree, but his point is that a match has the potential to burn (and cause burning) but that potential is not enough to cause burning - it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning. Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning. Because the point is differentiating actual and potential as causal agents."
Exactly. Which is why the conclusion of an unmoved mover violates the premise you express so well above.
Earlier apologists had denied that First Way argues that a thing need be moving in order to cause another thing to move; above you seem to be realizing that this is not the case.
Something has to give.
Stardusty: "Thus, something that is ACTUALLY soft - as opposed to POTENTIALLY soft - can cause soft."
Legion: "This is the problem when you don't accept the way languages work (no language god!!!). No one would say "soft causes soft" in any possible context (except you), as I have already explained at length in my previous post. Very interesting that you ignored my response to this nonsense. I can only think of one reason you would ignore it, and it doesn't reflect kindly on you."
Language works when its terms coherently describes recognizable things, concepts, and relationships.
Don't blame the problems exposed by examination of your terms on the terms you define; blame them on the concepts that are so muddled.
Legion: "The mechanical reason a match can cause wood to burn is indeed because the match is hot, as you say and as I agree, but his point is that a match has the potential to burn (and cause burning) but that potential is not enough to cause burning - it has to be actualized as a burning state in order to cause burning. Thus, something that is ACTUALLY hot - as opposed to POTENTIALLY hot - can cause burning."
Legion: "Also, nowhere did Aquinas assert that only something in "state x" can cause "state x".
?????????
Legion: "Soft does not cause soft, particularly since soft isn't even a noun. "
Neither is "actually." But that didn't stop you from claiming earlier that it is.
The problem with the First Way isn't it's terms, per se. The problem with the First Way is that the only way it can convince the gullible is if it's terms aren't precisely and carefully defined.
No apologist here has demonstrated otherwise. Although Legion does deserve credit for at least starting to look more closely at the terms used in the argument.
Legion of Logic said...
" But Aquinas is not trying to say what sort of actualized state causes burning - "
He said so right in the argument in his example!
So did you, just a few posts up, you finally got the fact that a burning match makes fire, took you long enough, dang, every boy scout knows that!
" it must be actually burning."
Yesss!!! Bravo, again. Try to hold that thought, "it must be actually burning"
" Not when you are making the point that something has to be actualized, and not potential,"
Darn, you were doing so well there for a moment. Act causing act is a tautology.
You have reduced Aquinas to:
"Nothing can cause state X except something that can cause state X"
" Think of it this way. You are fixating on the burning. A match can potentially burn and actually burn."
False dichotomy. A match can also be actually wet, or broken, or whatever. It must be burning to cause burning.
" That is the point Aquinas is making, "
You miss the point of the example entirely. Only the correct sort of state will cause a sort of change. Aquinas was not as simplistic as you irrationally insist upon being.
Stardusty: "The sort of actualized state, or more simply, the sort of state, is critical to what is caused."
" Yes, which is why we have been saying it all along. For example, my post on March 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM: " 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.""
So keep that in mind, OK? The only reading that is not gibberish is "actually X causes actually X"
" We have never said that "actualized" is the only requirement to cause an effect."
We who? Yes, that has also been specifically argued here.
" But whatever is required to cause an effect, that cause must be actualized and not potential. "
And also be of the correct sort, such as hot to cause hot, and moving to cause moving, the two examples Aquinas provides.
Look, LoL, it is only two things to keep in mind, not some vast quantity.
The cause must be in a state, AND that state must be the correct sort of state.
This is a logical AND. Both conditions must be satisfied. In a logical AND we cannot "emphasize" one input condition. Failing to examine and satisfy both requirements simultaneously is faulty reasoning.
April 16, 2017 10:52 AM
That's a lot to respond to haha.
Cal: "So, you think we should read "actually hot" as "actuality hot." ?
Stardusty is repeatedly saying stupid things like "soft causes soft", ignoring the basic rules of English that small children learn in school. He also doesn't know the definition of "emphasize". For example, in a discussion of blue things, a blue ball is notable not because it is a ball, but because it is blue, therefore the emphasis is on "blue". In no definition of "emphasize" does it mean to remove other words around it. So when I say emphasize "actually" in "actually hot", that does not mean remove "hot", but rather that the point of the argument is highlighting the "actually" since it is showing the difference between actually x and potentially x.
I would not say "actuality hot" because actuality is a noun, not an adverb. Actually, actual, actuality, actualize, etc are all different forms of the same concept, but since all aren't nouns or adverbs, all aren't used the same. "Actually hot" in noun form would be "hot in actuality", but that's a lot bulkier.
Cal: "How does this refute the criticism pointed out umpteen times -- that in the First Way, a commonsense reading is that only a moving thing causes a thing without motion to move, only a hot thing causes something else to become hot, etc. ?"
In the sentence prior to the burning wood example, Aquinas says that in order for something to change, it must be changed by something already actualized, and then he gives the example of the wood. Now, if he was wanting to point out what you are saying the point is - that only a hot thing causes something else to become hot - he would have said so in the sentence prior, because the example sentence begins with "thus". But if that is what he is wanting to point out, that sentence makes no sense. Nor does the next line of thought, in which he continues to point out the difference between actual states and potential states.
Rather, his point is that something can cause burning only if it is in an actualized state. Something potentially on fire cannot cause burning, but rather has to be in an actualized state of being on fire in order to cause burning. He is trying to get the listener thinking about the causal power of actualized states, and the lack of causal power in potential states, for later in the argument. And as we have said all along, neither Aristotle nor Aquinas nor any of us here are trying to say that something being actualized is sufficient to cause any effect, so that is not a valid objection. Obviously the actualized state that causes burning must be something hot, but what he wants to highlight is the necessity of the cause being actualized in order to produce the effect.
Cal: "In your definitions, I think you should work on clarifying what you mean by "actually," if we are to understand that term as "actuality."
Actually is the adverb form of actuality, so the idea behind them is the same even if the usage is different due to not both being nouns. To make it a mirror of potentiality, I'll just do this:
Potentiality = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is not currently realized or in effect - water at room temperature is potentially ice, but not actually ice.
Actuality (including all forms of the word in their proper usage - noun, verb, adjective, adverb) = an intrinsic capacity within a thing that is currently realized or in effect - water at freezing temperature is actually ice.
Cal: "Look over all these comments"
Between the two threads, there are around 1200 comments. I frankly don't care enough about this discussion to look through all of those.
Cal: "Science is the rigorous examination of claims using precise and meaningful descriptions and terms. If you think the First Way cannot withstand that process, then I think you should realize that it is a bad argument."
I have no problem with the First Way's premises being held up against scientific discoveries, so long as it is actually the First Ways' premises being scrutinized.
Cal: "Exactly. Which is why the conclusion..."
And this is precisely why I wanted the line by line approach. I'm not leaping all over the place again. Line by line.
Cal: "Don't blame the problems exposed by examination of your terms on the terms you define; blame them on the concepts that are so muddled."
Are you agreeing that "soft causes soft" is a meaningful objection? Really?
Cal: "?????????"
Yes. That is what we have been trying to get you guys to understand all along. The reason I referred to it as the First Strawman is because it is not a premise of the First Way - it is the understanding you guys are trying to wrench from the burning wood example, but that's not what the burning wood is an example of.
Cal: "Neither is "actually." But that didn't stop you from claiming earlier that it is."
Quote where I said "actually causes actually".
Stardusty: "He said so right in the argument in his example!"
Do you honestly not understand there's a difference in emphasis and motivation between "Only a hot thing can cause burning" and "Only something that is actually hot, as opposed to potentially hot, can cause burning"? I mean, is it truly so difficult for you to understand something so simple?
The reason it's so important is because what you immediately try to do with it. Under your example, Aquinas is trying to say what sort of actualized state will result in effect x. Thus, if that's the point of his argument, then that rule must hold true throughout. So, you run with "movement is caused by moving things" and run to the conclusion waving your arms at it.
Under what Aquinas is actually getting at, he is saying that in order to produce an effect, the cause must be actualized and not potential. Even if something can potentially be on fire, that is not enough to cause wood to burn - it must be actually on fire. To condense the point of the example: "Only actualized states can cause change. Potential states cannot."
Stardusty: So did you, just a few posts up, you finally got the fact that a burning match makes, took you long enough, dang, every boy scout knows that!"
*facepalm* It must be nice, just ignoring the things people say that disprove your point. I provided an example from March 20 in which I say that no one has claimed being in an actualized state is sufficient to generate any effect. This is how you prefer to operate, isn't it? Just ignore select things?
Stardusty: "Act causing act is a tautology."
I'm not saying "act causes act", and neither is Aquinas. Rather, all change is caused by something in act (synonymous with "in an actualized state"). Point being, actualized states have causal power, potential states do not.
Stardusty: "Nothing can cause state X except something that can cause state X"
Nothing can cause state x except by something that is actualized. Obviously the actualized state has to be capable of producing state x, but that doesn't mean that the actualized state must itself be state x.
Stardusty: "Stardusty: "So keep that in mind, OK? The only reading that is not gibberish is "actually X causes actually X"
Red drinks cause me heartburn. Heartburn is not a red drink.
Softness causes good sleep. Good sleep is not soft.
Bright lights cause blindness. Blindness is not bright.
Bad breath causes the consumption of Tic Tacs. Tic tacs are not bad breath.
Now if, instead of making up our own strawman arguments, we go with what Aquinas is actually getting at:
If the drink is potentially red, but not actually red, I won't get heartburn.
If the pillow is potentially soft, but not actually soft, I won't get good sleep.
If a light is potentially bright, but not actually bright, I won't get blinded.
If breath is potentially bad, but not actually bad, I won't eat a Tic Tac.
Actualized states have causal power. Potential states do not. That is the point.
Stardusty: "We who? Yes, that has also been specifically argued here."
Quote?
Stardusty: "And also be of the correct sort"
BOOM! Breakthrough! While it is not a premise of the argument nor the point of the example, it is nonetheless true. And it is so, so different than "in order to cause state x, the cause must exhibit the effect it is causing". "Of the correct sort" is universally true, "must exhibit the effect it is causing" is not.
Thus, if we were to replace the state "hot" with "soft", we could no longer say the gibberish "soft causes soft" like we (with proper word usage) could with heat, but we know that softness can cause other things. But much like with heat, softness only has causal power if it is actualized softness, or actualized heat, rather than potential softness or potential heat.
Stardusty: "Failing to examine and satisfy both requirements simultaneously is faulty reasoning."
And on that note, since we have entered the era of the mega posts again, this evening I will begin the line-by-line analysis. We'll see where the faulty reasoning lies.
Legion: "Soft does not cause soft, particularly since soft isn't even a noun. "
Me: "Neither is "actually." But that didn't stop you from claiming earlier that it is."
Legion: "Quote where I said "actually causes actually"
Okay.
Earlier, you claimed that actually isn't an adverb (which it is), but that it should be read as a noun (which it is not). Here you go:
Legion (earlier): "You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality)."
I was just pointing out that it's ironic that you'd take SD a line of reasoning that tries to dismiss SD's approach of arbitrarily using something as a noun when that is not the an accepted use, but reserving that practice for yourself.
Post a Comment