bmiller: "While you are entitled to your opinion about what can be and cannot be talked about, the fact is that the First Way talks about motion as it exists after it starts and before it ends but does not talk about it's start nor it's end. "
You don't do credit to the First Way, which actually does "talk" about motion at its end (for the purposes of the First Way, the end is the present) as well as its start (the first mover is the start -- didn't you know this? ). You don't even know what the First Way is about, and if you don't know what the First Way is even about, you can't be expected to see its shortcomings.
You don't do credit to the First Way, which actually does "talk" about motion at its end (for the purposes of the First Way, the end is the present) as well as its start (the first mover is the start -- didn't you know this? ). You don't even know what the First Way is about, and if you don't know what the First Way is even about, you can't be expected to see its shortcomings.
That's an interesting take. Why don't you expand on why you say this.
bmiller: "That's an interesting take. Why don't you expand on why you say this."
Because I have found that you're not a minimally capable or sincere interlocutor. And it's a waste of my time to repeat what I understand when I see that doing so will have no practical effect.
Because I have found that you're not a minimally capable or sincere interlocutor. And it's a waste of my time to repeat what I understand when I see that doing so will have no practical effect.
Well suit yourself. In the meantime, I've tried to go through the OP's version of the argument, identify each verb and classify whether the verb is past tense, present tense, or future tense. I think perhaps some of the confusion comes about due to the use of the passive voice in the present tense within the argument.
One would expect to see verbs like "had moved", "has moved", "was moving", "has been moving" etc if activity from a past time was a consideration of the First Way. We don't see those verb tenses.
(1) is, moves, moves----------present tense (2) is moved, is moved----------present tense (passive voice),present tense (2a) is moved, is in, is moved----------present tense (passive voice),present tense (2b) moves----------present tense (2c) is----------present tense (2d) is, is, is----------present tense (2di) makes, is ... burning, to be burning, is moved/altered----------present tense (2e) is, be----------present tense (2ei) is, burning, burning, freezing----------present tense (2f) is, is moving, is moved moves----------present tense, present tense (passive voice) (2g) follows, is moved, is moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice) (3) moves, is moved, must be moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice) (4) proceed----------present tense (4a) would be, would move----------present tense conditional (4b) do not move, are moved, is not moved, is moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice) (5) is, arrive, (come to), is not moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice) (5a) is, consider----------present tense
Did the OP translate correctly? A side-by-side comparison of Latin to English can be found HERE. This translation is from Aquinas's Dominican Order.
" In the meantime, I've tried to go through the OP's version of the argument, identify each verb and classify whether the verb is past tense, present tense, or future tense. " --Well, ok, but the tense is only a part of the problem. To determine the logical application of the various forms of "move" also requires the sense in which the word is used as well as the object.
To make all this clear Oxford uses sentences intended to remove ambiguities of usage. Aquinas fails to be clear due to the paucity of words in the First Way.
Haines provides a link as a source for notation but that link also has a translation that shows important omissions by Haines as well as different translations. http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html For example Haines begins his outline with: "For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves." But the link begins with: "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Any particular translation, and any particular interpretation of the sense, tense, and object in each case fails for associated reasons. Any way you slice it, Aquinas fails very glaringly.
Similarly, any particular assertion of the motion of the first mover itself also fails for associated reasons, as I have outlined above June 07, 2017 7:00 AM and several times prior.
Try to think of all the different ways these words can be used: motion move moved mover movers moves How does each potential usage affect the argument in context? How many permutations of interpretation are there?
1no object, usually with adverbial of direction Go in a specified direction or manner; change position. ‘she moved to the door’ ‘I heard him moving about upstairs’
1.1with object Change the place, position, or state of. ‘she moved the tray to a side table’ ‘can you move your car so I can get mine out?’
1.2 Change one's place of residence or work. ‘his family moved to London when he was a child’ with object ‘they moved house four days after the baby was born’ 1.3 (of a player) change the position of a piece in a board game. ‘White has forced his opponent to move’ with object ‘if Black moves his bishop he loses a pawn’ 1.4informal Depart; start off. ‘let's move—it's time we started shopping’ 1.5in imperative move itinformal Hurry up. ‘come on—move it!’ 1.6informal Go quickly. ‘Kennings was really moving when he made contact with a tyre at the hairpin and flipped over’ 1.7 (with reference to merchandise) sell or be sold. with object ‘booksellers should easily be able to move this biography of Lincoln’
2no object Make progress; develop in a particular manner or direction. ‘aircraft design had moved forward a long way’ ‘councillors are anxious to get things moving as soon as possible’
2.1 Change from one state, opinion, or activity to another. ‘the school moved over to the new course in 1987’ with object ‘she deftly moved the conversation to safer territory’
2.2 Take action. ‘hardliners may yet move against him, but their success might be limited’ 2.3move in/within Spend one's time in (a particular sphere) or among (a particular group of people) ‘she moved in the pop and art worlds’
3with object and infinitive Influence or prompt (someone) to do something. ‘his deep love of music moved him to take lessons with Dr Hill’
3.1with object Arouse a strong feeling, especially of sorrow or sympathy, in (someone) ‘she felt deeply moved by this picture of his plight’
3.2archaic with object Stir up (an emotion) in someone. ‘he justly moves one's derision’
4with object Propose for discussion and resolution at a meeting or legislative assembly. ‘she intends to move an amendment to the Bill’ with clause ‘I beg to move that this House deplores the government's economic policies’
4.1archaic Apply formally to (a court or assembly) for something. ‘his family moved the Special Court for adequate ‘maintenance expenses’ to run the household’
5with object Empty (the bowels) ‘if you haven't moved your bowels today you'd better do it now’
Stardusty: "--Well, ok, but the tense is only a part of the problem. To determine the logical application of the various forms of "move" also requires the sense in which the word is used as well as the object."
It was my guess that bmiller thinks that because the First Way uses present tense verbs that therefore motion doesn't necessarily entail more than one reference frame. Because, well, grammar?
Yes, that is the level of "thinking" that I think he's operating at.
For example Haines begins his outline with: "For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves." But the link begins with: "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Is your point here that the OP left out the first sentence in his formal presentation his outline while only alluding to it in his introduction? Or do you consider the slightly different phrasing of the sentences that are similar to be confusing?
How does each potential usage affect the argument in context? How many permutations of interpretation are there?
None that I am aware of among the scholarly sources we've cited in this discussion.
Here is a little help from Oxford:.....
Well, Legion already cited the background categories that fell under the word "motion" for Aquinas and Aristotle. So there is no need to be confused. You already have a link to Aquinas's commentary on Aristotle if care to check.
It was my guess that bmiller thinks that because the First Way uses present tense verbs that therefore motion doesn't necessarily entail more than one reference frame. Because, well, grammar?
Yes, that is the level of "thinking" that I think he's operating at.
Well yes, I consider grammar when reading a sentence. When a sentence uses present tense, to me, that indicates that it is not referring to events in the past or future but instead to the present. Apparently others think otherwise.
Do you think "reference frames" make present tense statements into past tense statements?
@Strawdusty, For example Haines begins his outline with: "For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves." But the link begins with: "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
" Is your point here that the OP left out the first sentence in his formal presentation his outline while only alluding to it in his introduction? Or do you consider the slightly different phrasing of the sentences that are similar to be confusing?" --I anticipated this question prior to stating "for example". Haines leaves out an important line. Haines also uses an ambiguous translation. To say "something moves" can mean that something causes motion, or it can mean that objects move and then stop, or it can mean that objects are observed to presently be in motion.
The wording at the link is much more clear, stating "are in motion". But that calls for the question of the potential biases of the translators. Is the ambiguous term "moves" the more accurate translation indicating that Aquinas actually spoke ambiguously, or is the clear term "are in motion" the more accurate translation meaning Aquinas spoke unambiguously but the Haines translation is poor, or is the Haines translation accurate and the linked translation the result of the biases of the translator such that he/she simply picked one particular interpretation?
The fact that these differences of translations and all their related question exist makes the reliability of any particular analysis dubious.
But go ahead and pick your favorite, I can dismantle it in any case.
SP How does each potential usage affect the argument in context? How many permutations of interpretation are there?
" None that I am aware of among the scholarly sources we've cited in this discussion." --Each source tends to pick a favorite view and present it as "the" view. But it is not as simple as that. A key assertion is: "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Here the word "mover" is ambiguous. A "mover" can be one who moves others, or it can be one who has been in motion, or both. "put in motion by not other" does not clarify the question as to whether this asserted first mover is itself in motion.
This glaring ambiguity or omission leads immediately to at least these 3 problems: Suppose: 1.The first mover was always moving. Then motion can proceed to infinity after all and there is no need for a first mover. This violates the First Way prohibition of motion regressing to infinity.
2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move. Then something can move itself after all, another violation of the First Way.
3.The first mover has always been motionless. Not only does this violate the examples of the First Way, but it violates the notion put forth that the realization of a potential is motion. If the universe was motionales and then the first mover moved something in the universe then the first mover was first potentially going to move something and then the first mover actually moved something, and thus satisfies the very definition of change and motion put forth variously here. Thus, to change something else a thing must itself change.
Since all three choices render the First Way self contradictory we may wonder if Aquinas was intentionally deceptive in this glaring defect or if he simply did not have the depth of thought required to address it.
Haines leaves out an important line. Haines also uses an ambiguous translation. To say "something moves" can mean that something causes motion, or it can mean that objects move and then stop, or it can mean that objects are observed to presently be in motion.
The wording at the link is much more clear, stating "are in motion". But that calls for the question of the potential biases of the translators. Is the ambiguous term "moves" the more accurate translation indicating that Aquinas actually spoke ambiguously, or is the clear term "are in motion" the more accurate translation meaning Aquinas spoke unambiguously but the Haines translation is poor, or is the Haines translation accurate and the linked translation the result of the biases of the translator such that he/she simply picked one particular interpretation?
Here is the original Latin for the sentence you discuss:
Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo.
The verb movērī is the present passive infinitive of the verb moveō. Since the tense is present and not future, it cannot mean that an object will "then stop". Since the voice is passive, the things or thing is not the cause of the verbal action, so "something causing motion" can likewise be eliminated. This leaves 'present motion' as the common intrepetation for both versions. Of course just comparing the 2 English versions one could converge on the same solution by merely rejecting perceived ambiguities between the 2 and settling on the common interpretation.
Glad I could once again help resolve ambiguities. ☺
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Here the word "mover" is ambiguous. A "mover" can be one who moves others, or it can be one who has been in motion, or both. "put in motion by not other" does not clarify the question as to whether this asserted first mover is itself in motion.
It is not ambiguous if you recall this previous part of the argument: "Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."
So a mover that is not moved by another cannot be moving.
But you use the phrase "or it can be one who has been in motion" which asserts that the argument refers somehow to the past. Where in the argument do you see warrant for asserting it refers to the past?
Again you repeat this here.
1.The first mover was always moving. 2.The first mover wasmotionless and then began to move. 3.The first mover has always been motionless.
" Where in the argument do you see warrant for asserting it refers to the past?" --The first motion imparted by the first mover was necessarily in the past.
1.The first mover was always moving. 2.The first mover wasmotionless and then began to move. 3.The first mover has always been motionless.
All of which violate the first way and definitions cited as from Aquinas outside the First Way.
--The first motion imparted by the first mover was necessarily in the past.
1.The first mover was always moving. 2.The first mover wasmotionless and then began to move. 3.The first mover has always been motionless.
All of which violate the first way and definitions cited as from Aquinas outside the First Way.
None of this is part of the First Way. None of this is part of the Five Ways. The First Way as well as the rest of the Five Ways argue only from what is happening in the present. If you think otherwise, you need to cite it.
Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present and is willing to move on to the next statement. I don't anticipate that Strawdusty will.
" Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present " --Now it comes back to me, this nonsense about the First Way not discussing the past.
How absurd.
"If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
A first mover would have to have imparted the first motion in the past, duh.
@Stardusty, we are looking at your garden-variety stupid, combined with dogmatic and hierarchical-based thinking.
Apologists don't explore thoughts and test them against reality; they repeat slogans, and wait for group approval.
And this is why apologists always (always) fear ridicule more than truth; they know that humor and scorn can lacerate the bonds of their cabal. And because apologists are most concerned with belonging to a group, and reaping the rewards they envision from that group's power, ridicule of their group's beliefs undermines those cherished hopes.
That's my operating explanation, anyway. I've found it works pretty well in predicting how these discussions behave.
bmiller: "Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present and is willing to move on to the next statement. I don't anticipate that Strawdusty will."
An idio -- imagining that casting more light on his persistent obtuseness, and making plaintive gestures to be backed up his group -- will somehow make black turn into white.
I would say it's pathetic, but in these days in which we live it's more accurately described as ominous.
A first mover would have to have imparted the first motion in the past, duh.
But that is not what the First Way discusses. Every word of what you quoted is a discussion of a series that makes up a mobile, moving series in the present. Not a single word about any past action.
There is no ambiguity about this. There are no verbs indicating past action. There is no dispute among scholars. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
If you insist present tense verbs imply past action then you have simply stopped speaking English.
bmiller: "Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present and is willing to move on to the next statement. I don't anticipate that Strawdusty will."
An idio -- imagining that casting more light on his persistent obtuseness, and making plaintive gestures to be backed up his group -- will somehow make black turn into white.
Well, you've told us that you will no longer interact with me and so you've shown by refusing to answer any of my questions. Legion had offered to go line-by-line with you through the argument and that was happening. Maybe he wants to continue that and maybe not. I am offering to step aside if he wants to continue.
Do you want to discuss with me how an argument that has no verbs implying past action somehow implies past action? Sounds like making something white turn black to me.
" If you insist present tense verbs imply past action then you have simply stopped speaking English." --How incredibly stupid, or dishonest, or both.
You offered me a passage in which all verbs are in the present tense. You did not disagree that any of the verbs are in the present tense (if so, which ones?). The passage actually includes the example of a hand moving (present tense) a staff and then you said this:
"A first mover would have to have imparted the first motion in the past, duh."
So I have to conclude that somehow you find past action taking place in present tense verbs.
Aquinas is summarizing Aristotle regarding the Unmoved Mover in the First Way, so let's look HERE at the section from Physics where the particular type of series of movers being moved is discussed:
Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us take the case in which a thing is in locomotion and is moved by something that is itself in motion, and that again is moved by something else that is in motion, and that by something else, and so on continually: then the series cannot go on to infinity, but there must be some first movent. For let us suppose that this is not so and take the series to be infinite. Let A then be moved by B, B by G, G by D, and so on, each member of the series being moved by that which comes next to it. Then since ex hypothesi the movent while causing motion is also itself in motion, and the motion of the moved and the motion of the movent must proceed simultaneously (for the movent is causing motion and the moved is being moved simultaneously) it is evident that the respective motions of A, B, G, and each of the other moved movents are simultaneous.
You also have, at your disposal, the original Latin of the phrase you quoted:
Omne ergo quod movetur, oportet ab alio moveri. Si ergo id a quo movetur, moveatur, oportet et ipsum ab alio moveri et illud ab alio. Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum, quia sic non esset aliquod primum movens; et per consequens nec aliquod aliud movens, quia moventia secunda non movent nisi per hoc quod sunt mota a primo movente, sicut baculus non movet nisi per hoc quod est motus a manu. Ergo necesse est devenire ad aliquod primum movens, quod a nullo movetur,
HEREis a site that will help you cojugate the Latin verb "moveo", the verb under discussion.
1. Not a single substantive, meaningful reply to the criticisms offered of the First Way (not sound, equivocation, begging the question, and contradictory) despite all these handwaving comments from the apologists, 2. a vow to define the First Way point by point as a defense that has apparently been abandoned, 3. and most recently an apologist who seems to think that because grammar manages tenses therefore one can discuss motion without reference to a prior reference frame.
What a long-winded casserole of nonsense the apologists have offered in their "defense."
I think our work is done here, Stardusty. Thanks for all your comments -- they are all truly a pleasure to read.
" I think our work is done here, " --What, so soon?-)
I'm just gettin warmed up!
I have been considering some of your psychological hypotheses. I ordinarily think internet psychoanalysis is pretty questionable but I have to admit your theories do fit the data amazingly well.
Any thoughts on receiving a barrage of attributions of troll. laced with copious expletives and ad hominems? The folks here mentioned Feser several times so I went over there to post a few things and half the posters just went apeshit. Of course, none of my attackers could put together cohesive arguments, but apparently I am most certainly a lying, ignorant stupid shithead troll troll troll. How Christian of them to inform me of such!
Stardusty: "Any thoughts on receiving a barrage of attributions of troll. laced with copious expletives and ad hominems? The folks here mentioned Feser several times so I went over there to post a few things and half the posters just went apeshit. Of course, none of my attackers could put together cohesive arguments, but apparently I am most certainly a lying, ignorant stupid shithead troll troll troll. How Christian of them to inform me of such!"
I think that we are wired for human interaction in a face-to-face setting, and that environments like internet forums present an imbalanced environment; that's why so many times you hear that people are different in face-to-face interactions than they come across in email, comments, print, etc. So, among other things, I think that internet conversations are interesting not just for the opportunity to discuss ideas, but they may also be instructive by revealing cognitive forces that are more difficult to recognize (repressed?) in the more complex setting of face-to-face interaction.
I'm interested in ideas, and it occurs to me that one can't think about ideas absent the process of how it is we think. That's one reason I justify my participation in online forums like this -- as I mentioned it seems that apologists are pathological thinkers, and pathology is basically at the heart of neurological science; we know how the brain works mostly because we see what happens when some part of it is damaged.
So, your visit to Feser's blog is like going to the critical ward of online neurological study -- you are standing amongst the mother lode of pathological thinking, amplified by the imbalance found in online (not face-to-face) communication, and drawing from those who are pre-disposed to preserve group cohesion by reviling those identified as outsiders.
You must have felt so lucky. Like Dawkins discovering the Galapagos. :)
For what it's worth, I did decide to abandon my exercise, as it was clear the point of said exercise - getting a skeptic to understand the argument and then offer up relevant, meaningful criticisms based on the actual argument - was not going to ever be met, as neither skeptic had even a basic grasp of the argument based on the laughable criticisms I easily fielded. So after that much time and effort, only to wind up farther behind than when the thread started in January, I just laughed and gave up. Interpret that as a victory for yourselves, I guess. You outlasted my endurance.
Stardusty, can you link your conversation on Feser's blog?
I'm assuming you are referencing the discussion about the problem of evil. Indeed you did get some unhinged responses, primarily from one poster, but you did enter the conversation with "You poor brainwashed guilt ridden self hating Christians." That's not an opener for a civil conversation, something skeptics all over don't seem to understand.
Interpret that as a victory for yourselves, I guess. You outlasted my endurance.
Yes, it's really been quite funny.
Call your opponents names, refuse to engage with them, and then declare victory.
I particularly enjoyed hearing them argue that: 1) They understand Aquinas's argument better than Aquinas and all commentators in history. 2) there is no such thing as potential 3) inanimate things move themselves 4) nothing moves things 5) present tense verbs imply past action.
I would list "frames", "end is the present" etc, also but we never got to hear how this was supposed to work since the proponent went into hiding.
bmiller: "I particularly enjoyed hearing them argue that: 1) They understand Aquinas's argument better than Aquinas and all commentators in history."
False. We understand the argument well enough (as have so many other commentators throughout history, with the most living in the present day) to see its flaws.
bmiller: "2) there is no such thing as potential"
False. We have pointed out that the term is muddled, and deficient when describing motion.
bmiller: "3) inanimate things move themselves"
False. (Exactly the opposite of what we have said, actually.)
bmiller: "4) nothing moves things"
False. (This one is also bizarre.)
bmiller: "5) present tense verbs imply past action."
LOL. Nothing can better demonstrate your stupidity than your inability to grasp what we wrote about motion requiring at least two reference frames, and that one of them is necessarily prior (past).
bmiller: "I would list "frames", "end is the present" etc, also but we never got to hear how this was supposed to work since the proponent went into hiding."
As I said, I have stopped responding to your requests for me to pay attention to you because I have recognized that you are stupid and insincere. As evicence, I give you your last comment (and all priors).
Legion: "For what it's worth, I did decide to abandon my exercise, as it was clear the point of said exercise - getting a skeptic to understand the argument and then offer up relevant, meaningful criticisms based on the actual argument - was not going to ever be met, as neither skeptic had even a basic grasp of the argument based on the laughable criticisms I easily fielded."
Nope. You appear to be trying to re-frame what you said you were trying to do, and pretend that you could have achieved that objective. But you have actually failed to do what you said you would do. You said you would do this:
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."
You have not followed through on your original proposal, and I think we can surmise why.
Cal: "Nope. You appear to be trying to re-frame what you said you were trying to do, and pretend that you could have achieved that objective."
Oh really? For example:
Me on May 8: “The only way for someone who agrees with an idea to find out if the idea is in fact bad, is to hold it up to criticism. If it withstands the criticism, there is no need to abandon the idea, but if a deficiency is demonstrated, then the idea should be modified or discarded. So the whole point of this was to go with you, line by line, and show you each premise one at a time, so that we could build upon each previous premise and thus you could see what Aquinas was actually saying. And that would be your opportunity to demonstrate the flaws.”
But we don't need to stay that recent. How about when I first proposed it to you, back on March 28?
Me on March 28: “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.”
Oh look, the post history again proves me correct.
But you are correct, I never had a prayer of setting out what I was trying to do - which, as the post history proves, was to get the skeptics to understand the argument, based upon what Aristotle and Aquinas were actually arguing for, and then refute it without fallacies. I was extremely overconfident in my ability to achieve that goal.
Perhaps someone elsewhere who has demonstrated the ability and integrity to actually understand another's position without ridiculously unjustified arrogance clouding his judgment, has taken the argument and refuted it. I'll look around.
Legion: "Oh look, the post history again proves me correct. "
No, it doesn't.
Legion: "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."
You stopped proceeding line by line, which is what you said you would do. I asked you to proceed on numerous occasions, and not to get hung up on the problems I pointed out in your definitions.
You stopped, which is your prerogative. But you can't say you did what you said you would do (go through the argument, line by line)-- saying as much is false, and saying false things is something I am compelled to point out.
You are confusing the method with the goal. The goal (getting the skeptics to grasp the argument and then refute it) was only possible (so I thought) if I used the method of going line by line.
There was no point in proceeding to later lines if earlier lines were not understood, said lack of understanding being made evident in the objections getting thrown out. Can't build the roof before the foundation, and can't understand later premises if the premises they build upon aren't understood.
LOL. Nothing can better demonstrate your stupidity than your inability to grasp what we wrote about motion requiring at least two reference frames, and that one of them is necessarily prior (past).
bmiller: "I would list "frames", "end is the present" etc, also but we never got to hear how this was supposed to work since the proponent went into hiding."
As I said, I have stopped responding to your requests for me to pay attention to you because I have recognized that you are stupid and insincere. As evicence, I give you your last comment (and all priors).
Small children throw out insults and then hide. Adults with integrity defend their claims.
I think it is wise that you have recanted your previous positions. I doubt your partner has.
Legion: "There was no point in proceeding to later lines if earlier lines were not understood, said lack of understanding being made evident in the objections getting thrown out."
By understood you seem to mean, "agree with me that there is no problem." This would be a dishonest way to analyze an argument in order that that it could be fairly criticized according to the rules of good argument, so I find this this objection to be specious.
Legion: "Can't build the roof before the foundation, and can't understand later premises if the premises they build upon aren't understood."
By these rules you seem to insist that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. But you are not -- the standards for what make a good argument are objectively known -- they are soundness, consistency, validity, and avoidance of known fallacies. To insist that you alone can determine whether or not criticism is valid by your determination of someone else's understanding (something that you cannot know) of the thing being criticized is a failing to fairly scrutinize an argument. It is an attempt to supplant the rules of good argument for your sole determination -- a determination that is simply unknowable.
This is consistent with a kind of narcissism. It's the best explanation -- along with the other factors I've mentioned in passing -- for your inability to process the valid criticism you've been offered so many times now.
bmiller: "Small children throw out insults and then hide. Adults with integrity defend their claims."
And then there are immature adults who act like children. Sic. (Of course, you act so young you may still be a teenage. Still, I don't recall being so loathsome as a teen.)
bmiller: "I think it is wise that you have recanted your previous positions. I doubt your partner has."
Correcting your lies is not recanting. And you are just a little liar.
bmiller: "Small children throw out insults and then hide. Adults with integrity defend their claims."
And then there are immature adults who act like children. Sic. (Of course, you act so young you may still be a teenage. Still, I don't recall being so loathsome as a teen.)
Yes, that's how I thought you'd respond. No defense, just more insults and hiding. I guess you've self-identified.
Correcting your lies is not recanting. And you are just a little liar.
Nonsense. Those are the accurately stated positions argued for by your side in this thread. I didn't see you disagree with any of them at the time.
When I consider the 1600+ comments in total, I conclude that the First Way is neither invalid nor unsound. Thanks Legion for trying.
Yes Legion, I agree with SteveK. Thanks.
I think we've all got a better understanding of the First Way after the discussion including the atheists (although it was with wailing an gnashing of teeth).
" you did enter the conversation with "You poor brainwashed guilt ridden self hating Christians." That's not an opener for a civil conversation," --It was intended to be both an expression of sympathy and a wake up call for people deeply victimized by a brainwashing cult.
I was struck by the self hating, self flagellating, guilt ridden nature of their self blaming reaction to their cult indoctrination.
It was like speaking with escapees from North Korea who still worshiped the dear leader.
"something skeptics all over don't seem to understand." --We understand cult induced self hatred vastly beyond those victimized by it.
What they, and apparently you, do not realize is how much sincere empathy I have for people like those poor saps who expressed such self loathing, still deep in their cult of self hatred.
Not surprisingly, telling a brainwashing victim "you are a brainwashing victim" is likely to be met with vociferous insult from the brainwashed victim.
Stevek: "When I consider the 1600+ comments in total, I conclude that the First Way is neither invalid nor unsound. Thanks Legion for trying."
There's been no meaningful rebuttal here of the criticisms offered of the First Way -- muddled language, equivocation, unsound, contradictory, and begging the question. The only person who tried to systematically address these problems gave up about halfway through -- which makes sense, because the self-assigned task was an impossible one, something that careful and systematic analysis reveals.
Your unjustified conclusion does not make the described problems in the First Way resolve. It makes it clear that you are not actually interested in argument per se, but are motivated by reasons outside those used to analyze arguments.
" You are confusing the method with the goal. The goal (getting the skeptics to grasp the argument and then refute it)" --You have failed to account for the case that you do not grasp the argument.
You seem to think that your interpretation of the argument is the only possible correct interpretation. That would be a rather narrow view of the subject, to say the least.
"if I used the method of going line by line." --Which quickly exposed many weaknesses in the First Way. You seemed genuinely surprised that you received so much objection just in the very few opening lines, that you seemed to think were so self evidently reasonable, valid, unambiguous, and true.
Well, they aren't.
If you think they are then has it occurred to you that your perspectives are not as broad as they could be?
The very concept of motion as change is dubious. One may well question that the change of position is a sort of change for an object at all. Place a simple solid object stationary on your desk. Is it changing? Well, not apparently or obviously, yet it is in fact moving over 60,000mph in orbit with the sun.
Even the very first few lines raise issues of the very fundamentals of causality, what it means for anything to change, and whether there is or is not evidence that things do in fact change without an external cause.
These things are not so very obvious as has been long considered by simple naked eye observations.
" There was no point in proceeding to later lines if earlier lines were not understood," --Actually, there is. It is you who apparently did not or perhaps still do not understand the highly questionable fundamental assumptions built into even the very first few lines.
But, in discussions often one stipulates that the other party is recognized to mean this or that by specified terms without granting that those meanings are valid, but in acknowledgement that the other party has attached those meanings to those words.
The phrase is typically something like "ok, let's just say for the sake of argument that X means Y, I don't agree, but supposing X does mean Y, what do you think you can further demonstrate in that case?"
" said lack of understanding being made evident in the objections getting thrown out." --Sorry, Legion, I think the opposite is the case. We skeptics are just that, skeptical, in the tradition of Des Cartes who doubted his way back to cogito ergo sum as the only absolute truth he could identify.
You should not be surprised or daunted when skeptics doubt the fundamental validity of the seemingly incontrovertible first few lines of the First Way.
" Can't build the roof before the foundation" --This analogy is not apt.
The assumptions about the nature of reality implicit in the opening lines of the First Way are dubious. One need not accept their truth value in order to analyze further statements.
" and can't understand later premises if the premises they build upon aren't understood." --That simply is not the case. Certain later fallacies occur in the First Way irrespective of the dubious views of motion and change introduced early.
For example Aquinas clearly begs the question ~~U therefore ~I ~I therefore U
It doesn't matter what you call act, or whether motion is change, in order to analyze those further statements for begging the question.
stevek: "My conclusion is justified by your inability to convince me that the argument is invalid or unsound. If you were to do that I would change my mind."
Your being convinced that a bad argument is a good one is not what determines whether or not an argument is good or bad (that is just another fallacy). You should all get over yourselves about a fallacy being the standard for good arguments.
A good argument is determined to be good if it conforms to the principles of good argument. That is the only standard -- not your pronouncement that you remain convinced or unconvinced. The only service provided by your pronouncement is that it makes it easy to determine whether or not you can recognize faults in bad arguments (evidently, you cannot).
@Cal, >> "A good argument is determined to be good if it conforms to the principles of good argument"
I agree with this. When skeptics present one that adheres to these principles, I will become convinced and change my mind. A lot of things have been said in these 1600+ comments and I don't see that argument anywhere.
Cal: "By these rules you seem to insist that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. But you are not -- the standards for what make a good argument are objectively known -- they are soundness, consistency, validity, and avoidance of known fallacies."
And by these standards, you defeat yourself. A strawman is a fallacy, and the vast bulk of what you offered as objections were strawman arguments. That's why the line-by-line approach utterly failed, you couldn't stay on subject worth a crap. There was no point continuing when even the most basic premises were too complex for you to grasp.
Cal: "To insist that you alone can determine whether or not criticism is valid by your determination of someone else's understanding (something that you cannot know)"
Between the two of us, I alone bothered to read the writings of Aquinas, Aristotle, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years. Between the two of us, I alone have an interpretation of the argument that is consistent with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years. So yes, between the two of us, I alone have any justification for claiming to understand the argument. You don't have a single justification for claiming the opposite. Your crippling narcissism is on display here.
Stardusty: "You have failed to account for the case that you do not grasp the argument."
You have failed to offer a valid reason for me to suspect I do not, as my understanding of the argument is in full accordance with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T philosophers.
Stardusty: "You seem to think that your interpretation of the argument is the only possible correct interpretation."
You seem to be afflicted with the same narcissism that Cal is buried under, in which you believe you understand Aristotle and Aquinas better than Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T philosophers who have studied their writings for years. Needless to say, there is not a single reason to suspect this is the case. The arrogant little quips about theists/apologists somehow being handicapped for not being atheists are no doubt incoming, but I'm up for some laughs if you're prepared to provide them.
Stardusty: "But, in discussions often one stipulates that the other party is recognized to mean this or that by specified terms without granting that those meanings are valid, but in acknowledgement that the other party has attached those meanings to those words."
I went by the definitions provided by Aristotle and Aquinas themselves. Your definitions did not match theirs, whereas mine did. I have not been provided with a reason to assume that Stardusty Psyche knows more about what Aristotle was saying than Aristotle did, not to mention Aquinas and A-T scholars.
Stardusty: "You should not be surprised or daunted when skeptics doubt the fundamental validity of the seemingly incontrovertible first few lines of the First Way."
It's obvious you don't realize what it was about the doubts that actually surprised me - it wasn't the lack of instant agreement, but rather the irrelevant tangents, the denials of things like water freezing into ice (it does), Cal telling me what I meant even when I quote exactly what I said that contradicts him, things of that nature. I found those to be astounding, and ultimately not worth any further effort.
Stardusty: "The assumptions about the nature of reality implicit in the opening lines of the First Way are dubious. One need not accept their truth value in order to analyze further statements."
We disagree whether meaningful objections were raised on the early premises, but one has to understand the early premises in order to analyze further ones, even if you disagree with them.
Stardusty: "That simply is not the case. Certain later fallacies occur in the First Way irrespective of the dubious views of motion and change introduced early.
For example Aquinas clearly begs the question"
Not addressing this is my only regret in abandoning this discussion, but I don't think it can be addressed unless the earlier premises are understood (not agreed with, just understood), which I have no reason to believe they are.
Seems silly to say this after approaching 2000 posts, but my interest in the First Way is strictly based on curiosity, meaning that I wouldn't care if the First Way was shown to be a garbage argument. Unfortunately, no objections have been raised that I find to be damaging to its premises or conclusion (including the accusation of question-begging, which is an accusation that A-T scholars have addressed, believe it or not). I know you and Cal disagree with that assessment, but the agreement of skeptics is not how I judge the worth of an argument.
1) Even if we accept ancient and outdated concepts of mortality, which were based on macro level observations in which it appeared that something noteworthy occurred during a posited transition between archaic notions of life and death - notions that have been rendered obsolete by modern quantum physics (we know that no matter or energy "dies") - we do not know that all men meet this definition of mortal. No scientific study has demonstrated that all men are mortal. No matter your definition of mortal, the argument fails.
2.) There is no evidence Socrates existed. Research the Socratic problem.
3.) See above.
Your arguments are ad hoc and beg the question. About what we would expect from an apologist.
>> "No scientific study has demonstrated that all men are mortal"
B: And yet it's true, is it not? A: On a macro-level it seems that way but at the micro-level nothing is mortal or immortal. Our macro-level perception is an illusion. Humans are actually neither mortal or immortal *and* they are actually mostly empty space - like concrete! B: wtf, huh? A: Our macro-level perception of men being mortal or solid is an illusion. The truth lies at the micro-level. B: This isn't a physics argument A: Now that I've destroyed the first line of the argument, the rest of it can be ignored. Case closed. B: *facepalm*
stevek: "I agree with this. When skeptics present one that adheres to these principles, I will become convinced and change my mind. A lot of things have been said in these 1600+ comments and I don't see that argument anywhere."
Round and round the apologists go; "I am not convinced," says the apologist, "therefore my argument stands."
But the standard isn't your being convinced or not (if you're an idiot, which you seem to be, your being convinced by an argument would incline me to presume it's a bad argument). The standard is the principles of good argument.
Me: "By these rules you seem to insist that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. But you are not -- the standards for what make a good argument are objectively known -- they are soundness, consistency, validity, and avoidance of known fallacies."
Legion: “And by these standards, you defeat yourself. A strawman is a fallacy, and the vast bulk of what you offered as objections were strawman arguments.”
You have yet to name one; all you do is repeat your silly assertion that you have perceived the unknowable — the unknowable being a) that I don’t really, truly understand the First Way, and b) that you actually do. You are oblivious to the obvious problems in your approach, and this makes you seem like such a lightweight.
Legion: “That's why the line-by-line approach utterly failed, you couldn't stay on subject worth a crap.”
Ha. This from the man who gave up halfway through a simple task explaining a topic on which he claimed to have such command.
You appear to confuse pointing out how an argument violates the principles of good argument with somehow not being able to “stay on subject worth a crap.” What a crock.
Legion: “There was no point continuing when even the most basic premises were too complex for you to grasp.”
I suppose you think that nodding one’s head at muddled thinking, like I imagine your daughter did for her dad, is what you think constitutes apprehension? (So that’s how Santa Claus gets down the chimney?) But that’s not apprehension — it’s aggressive gullibility, a genuinely dangerous tendency with a sordid past.
Me: "To insist that you alone can determine whether or not criticism is valid by your determination of someone else's understanding (something that you cannot know)" Legion: “Between the two of us, I alone bothered to read the writings of Aquinas, Aristotle, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years.”
This is false.
Legion: “Between the two of us, I alone have an interpretation of the argument that is consistent with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years.”
mkay. So, you loves the fallacies. I get it.
Legion: “So yes, between the two of us, I alone have any justification for claiming to understand the argument.”
You list a bunch of fallacies, still. But fallacies are not the standard for understanding an argument — they are known traps for bad arguments. And that simple fact is why you fail to see the problems in the First Way — you don’t actually abide by what makes something a good or bad argument. It’s really that simple, and also that difficult for you to fix (I can’t fix this for you — you have to be able and willing to do it yourself).
Legion: “You don't have a single justification for claiming the opposite. Your crippling narcissism is on display here.”
I get the feeling you don’t know what a narcissist actually is, except that you think it’s a bad thing to be compared to.
stevek: "I agree. I'm saying that I don't see any evidence of this good argument coming from your side. It's not very complicated, Cal."
Saying, "I don't see it," isn't a meaningful rebuttal. It's a repetition of the fact that you don't understand the rules of argument.
Stardusty links the problems with the First Way all the time. In order to refute the criticism, you'd have to actually show how it is that the First Way eludes the fallacies that Stardusty lists so often.
Pronouncing, "I'm not convinced" isn't a meaningful rebuttal, and can be safely ignored; it's a pronouncement that you're incapable of engaging with an argument, and are easily fooled.
@Cal, For example, Legion's rebuttal "this isn't a physics argument" covers a lot of ground when many of your criticisms attempted to force the argument into a mechanistic physics argument.
The obvious fact is, no, it's not that kind of argument. However, since you disagree, you need to show exactly, in painstaking detail, where the First Way is false according to physics. You didn't succeed in doing that by referencing Newton, micro-level physics or anything else related to physics.
I'd love to rehash 1600+ comment, but no not really. Pick your SINGLE BEST criticism and maybe we can look at it one more time.
So basically Cal got whipped by a lightweight. I'm okay with that, since I am indeed a novice at A-T philosophy and never claimed otherwise, beyond my ability to read the source and see what they believed.
Ah well. It is rare indeed that a skeptic provides meaningful dialogue, let alone highlights a bad argument.
I'm okay with that, since I am indeed a novice at A-T philosophy and never claimed otherwise, beyond my ability to read the source and see what they believed.
Well now we see the problem. It is unseemly for atheist heavy weights to actually read and comprehend arguments before loudly spouting their uninformed opinions. No wonder you are considered a light weight.
Apologists: "The reason you think the First Way is a bad argument is that you don't understand it!" Skeptics: "No, we understand it -- and our criticisms show which failings of bad argument it employs. For instance, please address Self contradiction, Begging the question, Ad hoc. Non Sequitur, False dichotomy, Further, the incomplete notation of the OP missing these terms: G, E )See these posts for more details and notation: March 12, 2017 9:25 AM, March 12, 2017 9:27 AM, March 12, 2017 9:28 AM, March 12, 2017 10:10 AM) Apologists: "No, your careful parsing of the argument using the rules of good argument is peremptorilay unfair. First we should define the terms of the argument!" Skeptics: "Great. Do it." Apologists: "In the First Way, motion means change, and change means motion, except that change involves more than motion." Skeptics: "Mkay. What else does change involve if not some kind of motion?" Apologists: " " Skeptics: "Hello?" Apologists: "We give up. You clearly don't understand."
Stardusty: "You have failed to account for the case that you do not grasp the argument."
" You have failed to offer a valid reason for me to suspect I do not, as my understanding of the argument is in full accordance with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T philosophers." --Exactly why you do not understand it. Declaring your understanding of A-T is like saying you understand epicycles like a medieval astrologer understood Ptolemy.
Richard Feynman said "nobody understands quantum mechanics". This is coming from a Nobel prize winning physicist who had "Feynman diagrams" named after him.
Knowing the mechanics of an argument is not understanding it. One only understands an argument when its faults are understood.
You can study Newton and become an expert in how exactly he expressed his physics. You will not understand Newton until you understand that he was fundamentally wrong.
Stardusty: "You seem to think that your interpretation of the argument is the only possible correct interpretation."
" You seem to be afflicted with the same narcissism that Cal is buried under, in which you believe you understand Aristotle and Aquinas better than Aristotle," --Most certainly I do, because I understand how wrong some of their core concepts are and where they used fallacious reasoning and where their arguments are ambiguous or fanciful.
" Aquinas, and A-T philosophers who have studied their writings for years. Needless to say, there is not a single reason to suspect this is the case." --I have mentioned the reason in the past: I stand on the shoulders of giants (Newton).
" The arrogant little quips about theists/apologists somehow being handicapped for not being atheists" --Imagine trudging through the bush in some place far from civilization. You spread the thick underbrush to come upon a huge campfire with dark skinned people in body paint, adorned with exotic dress, dancing, chanting, throwing sparks in the air, exhorting their gods for a good hunt, health, and fertility.
When I open the doors of a church and listen to the service with its music and chants and murmurs and lectures and songs that is how I see the congregation, as you would view the campfire rituals of hunter gatherers.
Stardusty: "But, in discussions often one stipulates that the other party is recognized to mean this or that by specified terms without granting that those meanings are valid, but in acknowledgement that the other party has attached those meanings to those words."
" I went by the definitions provided by Aristotle and Aquinas themselves." --Hence your profound lack of understanding, copying the misunderstandings of ancient men.
Stardusty: "You should not be surprised or daunted when skeptics doubt the fundamental validity of the seemingly incontrovertible first few lines of the First Way."
" the denials of things like water freezing into ice (it does)," --Does water have the "property" of freezing into ice? What exactly does that mean and how is that notion transferable or useful in reasoning a way to the origin of motion?
Certainly we observe at our level that liquid water becomes solid at low temperatures. But what do each of those terms mean? Certainly Observe Liquid Solid Temperature
" Cal telling me what I meant even when I quote exactly what I said that contradicts him, things of that nature." --Ok, I don't know which discussion you mean by that. I am not aware that I have been self contradictory toward you or in denial of specific things that were said.
I did misread one statement of yours, so thank you for correcting me on that. I was rather disappointed in myself for that error, but that is why science is an iterative process in which peer review is a critical element.
Stardusty: "That simply is not the case. Certain later fallacies occur in the First Way irrespective of the dubious views of motion and change introduced early. For example Aquinas clearly begs the question"
" Not addressing this is my only regret in abandoning this discussion, but I don't think it can be addressed unless the earlier premises are understood (not agreed with, just understood)," --It really is not that complicated.
We have only 2 choices I have ever heard proposed. If you know of another proposed choice, please tell me because I would really like to know.
1. An infinite regress of motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "I". 2. A first motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "U".
Since there are just 2 choices then: ~I = U ~U = I
The great unsolved problem is that both U and I are irrational. That is why the problem has not been solved.
The great error of Aquinas is attempting to pick one of these irrational options. Of course, simply stating ~I would be too obvious, so like all those who attempt this fool's errand he wraps the argument up in many words, most of which seem reasonable, but there is always a key fallacy someplace in every such argument.
The question is not whether there is a fallacy, rather, just where the fallacy is.
Aquinas uses the "because" form of "therefore". Y because of X X therefore Y
Aquinas states " But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover"
Here he asserts ~I because ~U cannot be because XYZ. So ~I because ~~U ~I because U U therefore ~I Then he goes on to say: "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other;" What necessitates U? The word "therefore" refers back to ~I, since only ~I can necessitate U. ~I therefore U
It all boils down to U therefore ~I. ~I therefore U.
Haines acknowledges the outline structure of this question begging. C2) ¬ I (premise 4) CC) U (premise 5)
But Haines does not address in notation his own (4)a, or the word "therefore" in (5), probably because that would make the question begging obvious.
Beyond the question begging Haines is incomplete in his notation failing to incorporate a symbol for a human understanding of god.
Aquinas is incomplete (and thus Haines would have to be incomplete) in moving from a human understanding of god to the existence of god outside of human thought.
So, both Haines, and much more importantly, Aquinas, fail to close the deal.
Besides all its other defects, in the end, the First Way is a case of all dressed up and nowhere to go.
@Cal, The lack of a good argument isn't a rebuttal to the FW. Saying "please address our criticisms" isn't sufficient to rebut an argument. You have to SHOW that your criticism succeeds in actually rebutting the FW.
stevek: "The lack of a good argument isn't a rebuttal to the FW. Saying "please address our criticisms" isn't sufficient to rebut an argument. You have to SHOW that your criticism succeeds in actually rebutting the FW."
????????
Yes or no -- Is an argument that equivocates, contradicts itself, begs the question, is ad hoc, employs a non Sequitur, offers a false dichotomy -- is that argument somehow still a good argument?
@Stevek -- Yes or no -- Is an argument that equivocates, contradicts itself, begs the question, is ad hoc, employs a non Sequitur, offers a false dichotomy -- is that argument somehow still a good argument?
This isn't in reference to an particular argument. It's a question regarding arguments in general.
Cal: "Hmm. I think you mean that I quoted you contradicting yourself."
Never happened. I decisively proved you wrong every single time this occurred. This is why I believe you have no reading comprehension, as the only explanations I can come up with for how you can possibly get what I say so incomprehensibly incorrect is either being extremely delusional, intentionally deceitful, or simply unable to really process what you read. In the interest of fairness, I settled on the latter.
Perhaps you should stop depending so much on baseless assertion, and start making actual arguments.
>> "Perhaps you should stop depending so much on baseless assertion, and start making actual arguments"
This is what it boils down to.
I think we can all agree that we should examine the rebuttal arguments with the same rigor that we examined the FW argument - and judge the rebuttal by the same standard. We have heard a lot of talk and a lot of claims but there have been no good arguments (clearly defined terms, sound, consistent, valid, avoids fallacies)
Legion:"" Not addressing this is my only regret in abandoning this discussion, but I don't think it can be addressed unless the earlier premises are understood (not agreed with, just understood),"
Strawdusty: "1. An infinite regress of motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "I". 2. A first motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "U".
Since there are just 2 choices then: ~I = U ~U = I
The great unsolved problem is that both U and I are irrational. That is why the problem has not been solved."
Legion is correct. Aristotle and Aquinas are talking about a series of instrumental moving movers in the present tense with "the first mover" being required for this type of series. You have defined "the first mover" differently. As long as you continue to do that, you are not making a case against the First Way.
". Aristotle and Aquinas are talking about a series of instrumental moving movers in the present tense with "the first mover" being required for this type of series. " --Easily the stupidest argument for a first mover I have ever encountered.
Aquinas bases his argument on motion that is apparent to the senses. It is apparent to our senses that objects move each other in a time sequence of events. There is no apparent mystery as to how or what caused the motion of a minute ago, since it was quite apparently the motions of objects from two minutes ago, and on and on into the past, as remembered, and as recorded, and conceivably back to an infinite past.
It is this infinite regress of past motions Aquinas is arguing against. You are an idiot, or a liar, or both.
equivocates, contradicts itself, begs the question, is ad hoc, employs a non Sequitur, offers a false dichotomy -- is that argument somehow still a good argument?
Blogger SteveK said... The answer is "no" June 16, 2017 12:05 PM
Ok, there is apparent merit to the line by line approach.
Do you agree that this line as a modern argument for god, not as a summation regarding the first mover, but in the aspect of a modern argument for god is demonstrably a false and ad hoc assertion in that I am part of modern "everyone" and I do not understand "this" "to be God"?
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God"
Stardusty: "It is this infinite regress of past motions Aquinas is arguing against. You are an idiot, or a liar, or both."
Unfortunately, he is right and you are wrong. It is well established that Aquinas differentiates between an essentially ordered series (what bmiller is talking about) and an accidentally ordered series (what you are talking about). It is also well known that Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. So, you're simply wrong that Aquinas was trying to logically argue something he did not believe could be logically argued.
This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument.
Cal: "Hmm. I think you mean that I quoted you contradicting yourself." Legion: “Never happened.”
False. To insist otherwise is to live in a fantasyworld.
You have contradicted yourself, and I have quoted you doing so. I’ll remind you.
Legion: “Either explain how there being types of change that involve no physical movement is a premise of the First Way, or admit that you are engaging in the First Strawman.”
So, at one point you argue that skeptics don’t understand the First Way because the First Way DOES NOT include the premise that there is change without any physical movement.
Then (wait for it), you say,
Legion: “Since the First Way covers every category of change that they had in mind - only one of which being physical movement - we know that they weren't just making a physics argument.”
And then you also said that in order to understand the first way one should assume that THERE IS another kind of change that does not include physical movement.
These two positions are contradictory. These are two quotes from you. You contradicted yourself above. And I have quoted you doing so in the past.
So, when you say, “Never happened,” what you mean is, “Yes, that did happen.”
If you can’t accept facts about reality (what you said, what I did), then you have no hope of ever being able to evaluate an argument. (This can explain things, I think.)
My guess is you are probably not so much a liar as deluded. And the plus side, with delusion there is always more hope than lying — it’s easier to fix understanding than it is to fix character.
Stardusty: "It is this infinite regress of past motions Aquinas is arguing against. You are an idiot, or a liar, or both."
" Unfortunately, he is right and you are wrong." --How absurd.
" It is well established that Aquinas differentiates between an essentially ordered series (what bmiller is talking about) and an accidentally ordered series (what you are talking about)." --That turns out to be a false distinction, but that is another issue, one of the false notions of A-T analysis of causality.
" It is also well known that Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning." --Irrelevant. You are conflating the origin of existence with the origin of motion.
God was imagined to have always existed as an unchanging changer, the unmoved and unmoving mover. God was imagined to have properties different than the properties of material existence.
Aquinas reasoned that we observe things move, and that one thing moves another thing, like a flame moves wood, or a hand moves a staff. Clearly, these observations are not instantaneous. A second mover occurs later in time than a first mover in what is "evident to our senses".
"If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again....Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover,"
To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past.
" So, you're simply wrong that Aquinas was trying to logically argue something he did not believe could be logically argued." --The absurdity of this line of argumentation is almost beyond description.
" This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument." --How idiotic. Aquinas was not arguing that the first mover acted in this present instant.
Legion: "Unfortunately, he is right and you are wrong. It is well established that Aquinas differentiates between an essentially ordered series (what bmiller is talking about) and an accidentally ordered series (what you are talking about). It is also well known that Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. So, you're simply wrong that Aquinas was trying to logically argue something he did not believe could be logically argued."
Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding.
By the rules of good argument, an argument with an unsound premise fails to be a good argument. So, you'll need to ditch that (incredibly silly) position of your hope is still to somehow show that the First Way does not fail to meet the requirements of a good argument.
Legion: "This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument."
When do you suppose it will occur to you that the criticism offered by skeptics is the understanding of the argument -- what it says, and why it fails to meet the requirements of a good argument?
Do you allow that that's a real possibility? Are you 100% sure that the First Way is a good argument? If not 100%, what percent of confidence do you have?
Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding.
Have you ever heard of the words "instantaneous" and "simultaneous"?
Stardusty: "That turns out to be a false distinction"
I welcome your explanation, since if it is a good explanation then that could indeed make the argument pointless.
Stardusty: "You are conflating the origin of existence with the origin of motion"
You do realize that you're the one doing this, correct? I'm the one saying it's NOT about temporal origins.
Stardusty: "Clearly, these observations are not instantaneous. A second mover occurs later in time than a first mover in what is "evident to our senses".
The effect does not have to occur at the exact same time as the cause for an essentially ordered series. What makes something essentially ordered is whether or not the effect ends if the cause is removed. Examples:
Tip over the first domino in a row and the rest begin to topple. You are the cause of the dominoes falling, but if you walk away from them they will continue to fall. Not essentially ordered.
Hold a yo yo in the air. The string is holding up the yo yo, but it is only able to do so because you are holding the string - it does not have this causal power in of itself. If you let go of the string, the rest of the series will fail. This is essentially ordered, in which the secondary steps of the causal series derive their causal power from something more primary - the hand holding the staff pushing the rock.
Stardusty: "To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past."
Only relevant if the past cause is required for the effect to continue after it is caused. If this "first mover" could disappear and its effects continue without pause, like dominoes or human generations, then it is not the first mover of the argument.
Stardusty: "The absurdity of this line of argumentation is almost beyond description."
Cal: "Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding."
That doesn't make Aquinas wrong, since Aquinas was fully aware of motion and causal series that were not essentially ordered. The argument is only about essentially ordered causal series, which basically means that if the cause is removed, the effect cannot be sustained. Your parents are your cause, but since you don't need your parents to continue existing, that is not essentially ordered. Your heart beating is definitely an essentially ordered cause with your existence as the effect. Cause vanishes, effect vanishes - essentially ordered.
Cal: "By the rules of good argument, an argument with an unsound premise fails to be a good argument. So, you'll need to ditch that (incredibly silly) position of your hope is still to somehow show that the First Way does not fail to meet the requirements of a good argument."
List the unsound premise, and explain why that premise is unsound.
Cal: "Are you 100% sure that the First Way is a good argument?"
Nope.
Cal: "When do you suppose it will occur to you that the criticism offered by skeptics is the understanding of the argument -- what it says, and why it fails to meet the requirements of a good argument?"
Namely because it has been proven that you guys still haven't grasped what Aquinas was saying. But yes, if you can point out an unsound premise, then I suppose it wouldn't matter if you had a clue what the argument was or not.
Also, a skeptic disagreeing with me does not make me suspect I may be wrong. I'm aware of the typical skeptic's feelings of intellectual prowess and inerrant reasoning abilities, but sadly I have yet to be impressed with such grandiose claims.
Also, though I doubt you care, I'm going to throw this out anyway. When I first got started in online debates about thirteen or fourteen years ago, I was very much to the loony end of the political right, getting my news from such illustrious places as World Net Daily and Infowars. I was a young-earth creationist, and I knew all about things like baraminology, flood geology, various cosmological models that didn't require an old universe, etc. I was a "King James Bible is without error" guy. All of these beliefs were very important to me on an emotional level, as well as intellectually compelling based on my one-sided knowledge.
When I ran up against people online who criticized such beliefs, and read sources different from my usual echo chamber, I considered what they said. Now I'm a centrist, have no trouble with evolution or an old universe or any other finding of science, and don't believe the King James is a perfect book by any means.
My point being, I can offer examples of where I abandoned even very important emotional beliefs when I was presented with good argumentation that those beliefs could not be sustained. The First Way is nothing more than a curiosity that I find to be a neat argument, an argument that I haven't even been aware of for a year and have been perfectly fine without. If I am not being swayed by your words, it isn't due to some sort of desperation or refusal to consider the possibility that the First Way is a crap argument - it is either because you are making very bad objections or it is because I am missing the point of what you're saying. Either way, you'll need a new approach if you actually want me to not agree with the First Way.
Strawdusty: " This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument." --How idiotic. Aquinas was not arguing that the first mover acted in this present instant.
All verbs in the argument are present tense and none imply past action. You've chosen "to arrive" to support your case, but "to arrive" is an infinitive and the way it is used in the sentence it is the object.
Here is the sentence: "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
The basic form of the sentence is this: it is "to arrive"
it is the subject is is the verb "to arrive" is the object
Therefore is a conjunctive adverb joining the previous ideas in the argument. necessary is an adjective modifying the subject "it" "at a first mover" is a prepositional phrase modifying the object "to arrive"
There is no indication of past action, only present tense verbs. Please consult a grammar textbook.
@Cal In the first quote from Legion he references the *premises* of the FW argument. In the second quote Legion references the FW argument as a whole. It appears he was not referencing the same thing with each statement. A contradiction requires that you refer to the same thing in the same way.
" Have you ever heard of the words "instantaneous"" --Zero motion occurs in zero time.
The idea that the first mover acted instantaneously in the present moment is stunningly idiotic.
The series of instrumental movers being in motion that Aquinas is referring to in the First Way is a simultaneous movement. When you say "the first mover acted" you've already missed the point.
" The big rebuttal argument is an argument from grammar?? Seriously." --Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present.
The stupidity required to even suggest this is stunning indeed. That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant, but of course, the motion of my fingers keying "first mover in the present" is in the past relative to the motion of my fingers to key again "first mover in the present".
--Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present.
What a concept! Where could it have come from?
Aquinas is summarizing Aristotle regarding the Unmoved Mover in the First Way, so let's look HERE at the section from Physics where the particular type of series of movers being moved is discussed:
Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us take the case in which a thing is in locomotion and is moved by something that is itself in motion, and that again is moved by something else that is in motion, and that by something else, and so on continually: then the series cannot go on to infinity, but there must be some first movent. For let us suppose that this is not so and take the series to be infinite. Let A then be moved by B, B by G, G by D, and so on, each member of the series being moved by that which comes next to it. Then since ex hypothesi the movent while causing motion is also itself in motion, and the motion of the moved and the motion of the movent must proceed simultaneously (for the movent is causing motion and the moved is being moved simultaneously) it is evident that the respective motions of A, B, G, and each of the other moved movents are simultaneous.
June 11, 2017 11:34 AM Delete
That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant,
>. "Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present."
Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time, imparting causal force acting upon it by the engine.
Clearly you are still lost, and we're almost 1700 comment into this.
Me: "Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding." Legion: “That doesn't make Aquinas wrong, since Aquinas was fully aware of motion and causal series that were not essentially ordered. The argument is only about essentially ordered causal series, which basically means that if the cause is removed, the effect cannot be sustained. Your parents are your cause, but since you don't need your parents to continue existing, that is not essentially ordered. Your heart beating is definitely an essentially ordered cause with your existence as the effect. Cause vanishes, effect vanishes - essentially ordered.”
While there are problems with the notions you describe above, none of what you write above changes the fact that motion entails a prior (past) reference frame.
In other words, if the First Way is dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame, then the First Way fails because it is based on an unsound premise — one that is basically, fundamentally, incoherent.
Motion cannot be described without reference to a prior (past) reference frame. End of story.
The the premise that includes motion without reference to a prior (past) reference frame is incoherent, and incoherent premises are unsound. It is like an argument based on the premise that consistency isn’t consistent, or that existence doesn’t exist, or that ordered sequences are not arrangeable in a hierarchy. Things fall apart, and the center cannot hold.
The First Way at least gestures toward a great and existential riddle; you seem to be defending it as a kind of new age woo, which actually belittles what the argument tries to address.
The First Way is better than that (although it is flawed, in the ways we’ve described).
>. "Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present."
" Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time," --It doesn't. The motion of the caboose is delayed by the elasticity of the system.
Try to think more accurately. It will help you to find the errors in ancient arguments.
" it is evident that the respective motions of A, B, G, and each of the other moved movents are simultaneous." --That is false.
June 11, 2017 11:34 AM Delete
SP That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant,
" Nonsense."
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
If all cause and effect happens simultaneously and instantaneously then are are no past motions.
If you would learn something about causality instead or repeating the errors of ancient men you would learn that cause and effect are mutual processes over time.
To argue for an instantaneous and simultaneous first mover is to argue not for a first mover and a second mover, rather, a sole mover that always moves everything in the present.
I did not realize the depths of the conceptual ignorance of the theists here until these last dozen or so posts.
Legion "Your heart beating is definitely an essentially ordered cause with your existence as the effect. Cause vanishes, effect vanishes - essentially ordered.” --That takes time. A person does not die immediately in this "essentially ordered" series. It isn't simultaneous.
Try to think more accurately, it will help you to identify the errors in the notions of ancient men.
In other words, if the First Way is dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame, then the First Way fails because it is based on an unsound premise — one that is basically, fundamentally, incoherent.
The First Way refers to things moving in the present, the now. It does not "dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame". It is simply not discussing a past sequence of events. To discuss things in the present is not to deny that things happened in the past, it simply means that past events are not part of the discussion.
Now you may consider this an unreasonable thing to do (discuss motion in the present) but that is what the First Way does. Congratulations for now engaging the First Way on it's own terms.
bmiller: "The First Way refers to things moving in the present, the now. It does not "dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame". It is simply not discussing a past sequence of events. To discuss things in the present is not to deny that things happened in the past, it simply means that past events are not part of the discussion."
Which is why that understanding of the First Way is unsound. That "understanding" exempts the First Way from consideration. By the rules of good argument.
You are apparently so stupid that you don't realize that you are arguing for WHY the First Way is not a good argument. You are apparently so stupid that you think that repeating that the First Way relies on an unsound premise is somehow a defense of the argument. I have no words for this persistent stupidity.
bmiller: "Now you may consider this an unreasonable thing to do (discuss motion in the present) but that is what the First Way does. Congratulations for now engaging the First Way on it's own terms."
Congratulations for presenting an argument which is, per the rules of good argument, dead on arrival.
SP That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant,
" Nonsense."
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
If all cause and effect happens simultaneously and instantaneously then are are no past motions.
No, you have it backwards. If nothing is happening at this moment, or the next moment or the next etc, then there is no movement happening at any moment and therefore no movement at all.
To argue for an instantaneous and simultaneous first mover is to argue not for a first mover and a second mover, rather, a sole mover that always moves everything in the present.
You're getting closer, but not quite. You're almost describing Occasionalism.
Legion: “Namely because it has been proven that you guys still haven't grasped what Aquinas was saying.”
Or, in non-bizzaro world, we do understand the argument, and we see its flaws.
You seem to think that every argument is a good one, and that it’s only a matter of understanding why they are good.
But many arguments are bad, and it’s important to develop the skills to recognize this. Do you disagree?
Legion: “But yes, if you can point out an unsound premise, then I suppose it wouldn't matter if you had a clue what the argument was or not.”
There is no secret, privileged “argument.” There is only the argument, which stands objectively on its own, in a way that can be analyzed by the rules of good argument.
We have pointed out the recent unsound premise (per the apologists announcement that cause and effect are instantaneous, and not separated by both time and space) — that if the First Way does not allow that motion requires a prior reference frame, then it CANNOT describe motion. Period. (Btw, this is a truly terrible place to plant your flag wrt to the argument — the argument has its flaws, but the one the apologists here have chosen is not among them — although were it to be an actual premise of the argument it does cause the argument to fail, because it is entirely unsound.)
Legion: “Also, a skeptic disagreeing with me does not make me suspect I may be wrong. I'm aware of the typical skeptic's feelings of intellectual prowess and inerrant reasoning abilities, but sadly I have yet to be impressed with such grandiose claims.”
It seems that you mistake skeptics’ criticism of apologists obviously flawed thinking with a commensurate pronouncement of perfect reasoning on behalf of the skeptic. But think of it more like skeptics having a vantage that the apologist doesn’t see — similar to an observer seeing a swimmer stranded in the ocean. The observer can see where land is, but the swimmer cannot. But that doesn’t mean that the observer sees everything — merely that the observer sees something that the swimmer cannot.
Legion: “Also, though I doubt you care, I'm going to throw this out anyway. When I first got started in online debates about thirteen or fourteen years ago, I was very much to the loony end of the political right, getting my news from such illustrious places as World Net Daily and Infowars. I was a young-earth creationist, and I knew all about things like baraminology, flood geology, various cosmological models that didn't require an old universe, etc. I was a "King James Bible is without error" guy. All of these beliefs were very important to me on an emotional level, as well as intellectually compelling based on my one-sided knowledge. / When I ran up against people online who criticized such beliefs, and read sources different from my usual echo chamber, I considered what they said. Now I'm a centrist, have no trouble with evolution or an old universe or any other finding of science, and don't believe the King James is a perfect book by any means.”
That’s a great story, and it gives me hope for you and all of us. There are times when I am frustrated by the inability of others to change their mind no matter what evidence and arguments are provided, and your account of evidence and arguments changing yours gives me heart.
Legion: “My point being, I can offer examples of where I abandoned even very important emotional beliefs when I was presented with good argumentation that those beliefs could not be sustained. The First Way is nothing more than a curiosity that I find to be a neat argument, an argument that I haven't even been aware of for a year and have been perfectly fine without. If I am not being swayed by your words, it isn't due to some sort of desperation or refusal to consider the possibility that the First Way is a crap argument - it is either because you are making very bad objections or it is because I am missing the point of what you're saying. Either way, you'll need a new approach if you actually want me to not agree with the First Way.”
All I can do is persist with what I see to be true.
I'm curious. What was it that allowed you to come to the conclusion that the discussion is about the present?
What I mean to ask is this: The First Way is about the present and not a time sequential series. This is what all of us except you and Strawdusty have been saying. What was it that now, you see what it is that we've been claiming all along?
Legion When I first got started in online debates about thirteen or fourteen years ago,... I was a young-earth creationist, --I have debated many a YEC on line in years past. My kids thought I was wasting my time. They were wrong.
Congratulations. I warmly invite you to continue your journey.
Sam Harris sometimes bemoans the lack of real time acquiescence of those he has clearly bested in debate. I sent him a message telling him that is unrealistic. All of us change slowly, in small bits, rarely by epiphany, rather, the aggregate of many repetitions and rewordings and restatements.
>> "It doesn't. The motion of the caboose is delayed by the elasticity of the system."
" Jeepers you are slow. I don't think I'll explain it to you since 1700 comments have passed and you haven't learned anything." --You claimed that a time sequence of events, a locomotive moving a caboose through a train, is "instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time"
You are demonstrably and measurably wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand how your error in the example relates to your other analytical errors. When you come to understand that relationship you will identify at least some of your other analytical errors.
bmiller: "Now you may consider this an unreasonable thing to do (discuss motion in the present) but that is what the First Way does. Congratulations for now engaging the First Way on it's own terms."
Congratulations for presenting an argument which is, per the rules of good argument, dead on arrival.
@Strawdusty,
"To argue for an instantaneous and simultaneous first mover ..."
I did not realize the depths of the conceptual ignorance of the theists here until these last dozen or so posts.
It seems that both of you now have an understanding of the "motion" discussed in the First Way. Strawdusty, I did not include your entire quote since I did not want to get into a dispute about the implications of that understanding for the purposes of this post.
Can you both now agree that under that understanding that " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move" is not relevant to the First Way since the First Way does not discuss motionless things beginning to move?
" Can you both now agree that under that understanding that " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move" is not relevant to the First Way" --No, of course not, reading skills. "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
" since the First Way does not discuss motionless things beginning to move?" --Absurd. "It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."
So you're saying that F=mA doesn't occur simultaneously? By that I mean the F generated by the engine doesn't result in the simultaneous A of the caboose?
Where are your measurements that demonstrate this?
" Can you both now agree that under that understanding that " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move" is not relevant to the First Way" --No, of course not, reading skills. "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
" since the First Way does not discuss motionless things beginning to move?" --Absurd. "It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."
"--No, of course not, reading skills." Yes, I think this is the problem. Please diagram the sentences, get them graded by a qualified high school English teacher and get back with us when he gives you an "A".
stevek: "Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time, imparting causal force acting upon it by the engine."
And this is another critical problem when discussing with apologists; a fundamental, basic ignorance of how events actually occur when carefully studied. I blame the widespread adoption of homeschooling, but I can't rule out your garden-variety stupid as well.
"Instantaneous" is a term for human approximations of "at the same time." The notion is a useful one, but it breaks down on careful examination. An airbag seems, to us, to deploy instantaneously. But it does not -- the airbags deployment occurs over a sequence that occurs over time -- it can be recorded photographically in milliseconds. From collision to deployment a human would say the effect is instantaneous, but the event occurs over a time period that can be described in millions of parts. So, instantaneous is useful, but it is a fiction that breaks down on careful examination.
Basic physics explains this. In the early 1900's, Einstein and other physicists also made it clear that there is no clear time of "now" -- there is only an arbitrary selection of time and space against which the effects of other events are measured. Events are observer dependent.
In today's world, if you do not understand that the light from some distant stars was emitted billions of years ago, and is just arriving at our point of observation now, you are ignorant.
In today's world, if you do not understand that the force of a locomotive starts at the locomotive and then extends throughout its system of connected cars at a speed no faster than the speed of light (Stardusty would know the speed at which this force extends through the system), then you are ignorant.
So, try to educate yourself. You were born in a world built by giants, and for some reason you think your efforts are best spent denying that the view they built for us exists.
And without this understanding, you are simply unqualified to have the discussion you seem to want to have.
@Cal >> "In today's world, if you do not understand that the force of a locomotive starts at the locomotive and then extends throughout its system of connected cars at a speed no faster than the speed of light"
This doesn't affect my point one iota. WHEN the caboose starts to move - whenever that occurs - the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion. Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained.
Conclusion: sustained motion/change of any kind is evidence that the FW is correct.
" So you're saying that F=mA doesn't occur simultaneously? " --What is acceleration? It is a change in velocity over time. Yes, by taking the derivative of velocity one may calculate a concept called "instantaneous acceleration", but that is a mathematical concept.
Real system are elastic. You can get a better feel for this if you think of how a soft rubber ball compresses and deforms on impact, or how a long soft spring stretches when pulled.
Steel balls and steel mechanisms are also elastic like the rubber ball and the soft spring, but their elasticity is so low that we are sometimes fooled into thinking they are perfectly ridged.
"By that I mean the F generated by the engine doesn't result in the simultaneous A of the caboose?" --No, certainly not, if for no other reason than light travels at about 1 foot per nanosecond, and that is a basic speed limit for all conventional physical actions of this sort.
" Where are your measurements that demonstrate this?" --Let's just suppose the train is 1000m long and light travels at 300,000,000m/s. So 1000/300000000 = 3us (3 microseconds).
So, who cares about 3 microseconds? Your computer performs about 10,000 operations in that amount of time. Our big bang is thought to have passed through the Planck epoch, Grand unification epoch, Electroweak epoch, and Quark epoch to enter the Hadron epoch in 3 microseconds.
An infinity of 3 microseconds would be an infinity of time just as surely as an infinity of years would be.
When considering the true nature of causality it is critically important to differentiate between precisely zero time and some finite amount of time.
Besides all that the train can be modeled as a mass/spring/damper system. I don't have the mechanical engineering model for that but if you doubt there is some finite delay time between a force applied at one end of a train and its propagation to the other end of the train then you just do not understand how mechanical systems work.
stevek: "WHEN the caboose starts to move - whenever that occurs - the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion. Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained."
Wrong. The force from the engine was impelled earlier in the transaction, and the time at which the force that originated from the engine is transmitted to the caboose is AFTER (not simultaneously) the time at which the force originated.
You don't understand basic physics. And an argument that denies the reality of how events occur is unsound (and a bad argument).
It's that simple.
stevek: "Conclusion: sustained motion/change of any kind is evidence that the FW is correct."
If by simultaneous motion you mean that physical events like a locomotive pulling its cars occur instantly, and not sequentially (spread out over time), then you are demonstrably incorrect, and pathetically ignorant.
Which explains a ton, I can tell you.
Why did you never take a basic physics course? Was it never required?
@Cal If you'd like to argue that ALL the sustained effects observed today are ALL the result of a cause that no longer exists in the present, then be my guest and make that argument. Yours would be a FW of a different kind - one that relies on a different type of causal series. It would be a metaphysical argument just the same. Proposing a metaphysical alternative to the FW of Aquinas doesn't defeat the argument.
" the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion." --That is not accurate, but it is basically true that the engine accelerated the train from a standstill and continues to apply enough force to overcome the rolling friction of the train, to a first approximation.
" Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained." --That is the ancient Aristotelian idea, which turn out to be wrong because the motion of the train continues even if the engine goes into neutral. Even with friction the motion of the train is converted to molecular motion in the environment, and so continues, not in the train, but in other objects.
" Conclusion: sustained motion/change of any kind is evidence that the FW is correct." --Since your "evidence" is erroneous it is no surprise your conclusion is also.
Motion is sustained, which only deepens the mystery and does indeed call for the question of the origin of motion.
The proximate cause for the origin of motion is our Big Bang. The expansion of the universe. But what caused our Big Bang? Ultimately, nobody knows.
Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics. It seems that you are unaware of this fact. Here is a video explaining instantaneous velocity. It helps if one understands calculus but at the 3:30 mark it shows the concept with some non-calculus examples.
Dusty >> " The proximate cause for the origin of motion is our Big Bang"
You'll need a good argument for this claim. The Big Bang causes authors to write novels and skeptics to type on computers? Interesting theory. Consider me skeptical.
Me: "Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained." Dusty: "That is the ancient Aristotelian idea, which turn out to be wrong because the motion of the train continues even if the engine goes into neutral."
You're not reacting to my point. My point is, remove the engine and the current motion - whatever it is - cannot be sustained. That current motion changes to be some other motion such as a decreasing velocity motion rather than a constant velocity motion. Aristotle knew this.
SteveK: "If you'd like to argue that ALL the sustained effects observed today are ALL the result of a cause that no longer exists in the present, then be my guest and make that argument."
Ha.
I don't need to make an "argument" for how motion occurs. Motion occurs in ways that are (or are not) accurately described.
Arguments that fail to account for how reality is described (how reality is) fail by the rules of good argument -- they rely on a premise that is unsound.
So, you don't understand how motion occurs (over a sequence of at least two reference frames), you don't understand basic physics, and you don't understand the difference between observations and arguments.
There's no reason for me to engage with you; you don't even pose good questions.
Stevek: "Yours would be a FW of a different kind - one that relies on a different type of causal series. It would be a metaphysical argument just the same. Proposing a metaphysical alternative to the FW of Aquinas doesn't defeat the argument."
I'm not making a metaphysical argument (whatever woo that would be). I'm not making any argument per se. I'm pointing out the various ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. Try and get your head around that very simple, very basic fact.
stevek: "You're not reacting to my point. My point is, remove the engine and the current motion - whatever it is - cannot be sustained. That current motion changes to be some other motion such as a decreasing velocity motion rather than a constant velocity motion. Aristotle knew this."
Aristotle was wrong about the physics of motion as you describe it above. This has been understood since the time of Newton.
Why did you never take a basic physics course? Was it never required?
Doesn't it bother you that you don't understand high school level material (basic, modern physics), and that your comment betray this (somewhat appalling) ignorance?
@Cal >> "I'm pointing out the various ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. Try and get your head around that very simple, very basic fact."
We've been discussing many side issues. Where have you discredited a premise of the FW argument? Be very specific.
" Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics." --Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?
Velocity is the first derivative of position, the second derivative is acceleration, and the third derivative is somewhat whimsically called jerk.
By that I mean position function and velocity function and acceleration function, say, of x.
The notion of an instantaneous value for these functions can be expressed by substituting a particular value of x into each of these functions to get a particular answer for that particular value of x. That is all very practical and allows engineers to do useful things.
The philosopher of math and science, however, will ask what it means to have an instantaneous value for something that is inherently meaningful only as a change over time.
If I move at a constant velocity between point A and point B, say, 10 meters apart and it takes me 10 seconds then I am moving at 1m/s. If I consider 3m in 3s that is still 1m/s. In each case I perform the division of m/s. But what happens when s goes to precisely 0? The expression is no longer valid, it becomes meaningless and will throw an error if you enter it into a calculator.
@Cal, >> "Aristotle was wrong about the physics of motion as you describe it above."
Whether he was correct or not is immaterial to what actually occurs. If you disagree with my statement on sustained motion and engines, tell me exactly where I am wrong. That's all that matters.
My years of physics and calculus courses are also immaterial.
>> "So, you don't understand how motion occurs"
Sure I do. It occurs when an actual thing causes some other actual thing to go from a state of inherent potential to actual - ie when something causes a book to go from potentially on the table to actually on the table. If I'm wrong, tell me exactly where I am wrong otherwise shut your trap.
ME: "WHEN the caboose starts to move - whenever that occurs - the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion. Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained."
Cal: "The force from the engine was impelled earlier in the transaction, and the time at which the force that originated from the engine is transmitted to the caboose is AFTER (not simultaneously) the time at which the force originated."
Read what I said. I said that the force from the engine is moving the caboose in the present moment - and that statement is 100% true. You are instead looking at when the force originated from the engine, but I wasn't doing that.
As anyone can see from my statement, I was looking at the instant when the motion occurred. At that instant in time, the force is applied concurrently with the motion of the caboose.
stevek: "Whether he was correct or not is immaterial to what actually occurs."
What actually occurs is the issue. If an argument relies on a description of reality that is not built on what actually occurs, then the argument is built on an unsound premise. And unsound premises make an argument a bad argument. Do you disagree? Because I thought you agreed above that there are rules of argument, and that recognizing a violation is how one identifies bad arguments.
stevek: "If you disagree with my statement on sustained motion and engines, tell me exactly where I am wrong. That's all that matters."
I did. Read it again. I can't make you understand, but I can point out your mistake.
Spoiler: A locomotive doesn't pull its cars simultaneously. The force is transmitted at some rate equal to or less than the speed of light. Sooooo, if the train were long enough (say, a train that wrapped around the earth 1,000 times), then one could literally start the engine down the track, then brake the engine, and (if memory serves) watch the rows of cars across each circumference of the earth motion down the track in sequences of about 2.5 rows per second. So, your silly notion that cars stop moving when the locomotive stops moving is wrong. And that's because motion that we observe occurs over time (with at least two reference frames).
Aristotlean physics is roughly correct and intuitive. Newtonian physics is more correct and a little odd. Modern physics is more correct still, and kind of weird. To the extent the First Way relies on intuitive physics over the more precise description of what actually occurs, it is unsound. And unsound arguments are (by the rules you agreed to) bad arguments.
stevek: "My years of physics and calculus courses are also immaterial."
No, they're not. Your conceptual ignorance cries out for an explanation. My most charitable explanation is that you were never exposed to real physics course -- the kind that you need to understand well enough to pass (most high schools offer these). A less charitable explanation is that you are simply stupid. Neither is comfortable for you, but reality needs to be faced at some point, doesn't it?
Me: ""So, you don't understand how motion occurs." Stevek: "Sure I do. It occurs when an actual thing causes some other actual thing to go from a state of inherent potential to actual - ie when something causes a book to go from potentially on the table to actually on the table."
Lol.
Stevek: "If I'm wrong, tell me exactly where I am wrong otherwise shut your trap."
Shut my trap?
I have told you where you're wrong. I can't fix your ignorance, and certainly not your stupidity. You have to do that on your own.
>>. "So, your silly notion that cars stop moving when the locomotive stops moving is wrong. "
Strawman. I said that the current motion changes to some other motion when the causal force is removed/changed. Observation proves that out. I'll quote myself to prove it.
Me: "My point is, remove the engine and the current motion - whatever it is - cannot be sustained. That current motion changes to be some other motion such as a decreasing velocity motion rather than a constant velocity motion."
>> "Lol. "
LOL right back at you. No argument, eh?
>> "I have told you where you're wrong."
Where? You've argued a strawman and you've replied with "Lol". If only it were that easy.
" Sooooo, if the train were long enough (say, a train that wrapped around the earth 1,000 times), " --Damn you, I had just recently managed to forget this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tJSn0QtME
" We've been discussing many side issues. Where have you discredited a premise of the FW argument? Be very specific." --Well, at the risk of jumping in on the conversation, here are some suggestions:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
As to your call for specificity, one false premise is introduced in the last sentence "this everyone understands to be God". It doesn't matter if his cloistered little audience had that understanding, as an argument purported to be valid today that is a blatantly false premise, since I am part of everyone, and I do not have that understanding.
A train moving at a sustained 50 mph for 8 hours requires a constant 8 hours of force from the engine. This is true whether the train is 1 mile long or it wraps around the earth 1000 times. Remove the engine after only 2 hours and it will no longer be able to sustain 50 mph for 8 hours.
Thus proving that I am correct. Remove the engine, the motion changes.
Stardusty: "You are conflating the origin of existence with the origin of motion"
" You do realize that you're the one doing this, correct? I'm the one saying it's NOT about temporal origins." --The origin of time does not in principle have to coincide with the origin of motion, if for example, somehow time passed but nothing moved.
Stardusty: "Clearly, these observations are not instantaneous. A second mover occurs later in time than a first mover in what is "evident to our senses".
" The effect does not have to occur at the exact same time as the cause for an essentially ordered series. " --Right, then it isn't simultaneous and the first mover is in the past in that case.
What makes something essentially ordered is whether or not the effect ends if the cause is removed. Examples:
" Hold a yo yo in the air. The string is holding up the yo yo, but it is only able to do so because you are holding the string - it does not have this causal power in of itself. If you let go of the string, the rest of the series will fail. This is essentially ordered, " --But what caused me? And what caused that? "But this cannot go on to infinity"
Thus Aquinas arrives at a first mover, necessarily in the past.
Stardusty: "To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past."
" Only relevant if the past cause is required for the effect to continue after it is caused. If this "first mover" could disappear and its effects continue without pause, like dominoes or human generations, then it is not the first mover of the argument." --There are no such statements in the text.
Stardusty: "Right, then it isn't simultaneous and the first mover is in the past in that case."
Not in the same sense as an accidentally ordered series. Remove the first mover in an essentially ordered series, and the entire series fails. That's why I've said that the cause must exist at the same time as the effect - which is different than saying the effect must occur at the same time as the cause.
Stardusty: "But what caused me? And what caused that? "But this cannot go on to infinity""
I believe this is likely a different question than what the First Way addresses.
Your parents caused you, their parents caused them, and so on. This is not an essentially ordered series, because your existence does not end if your ancestors die. You are the effect of the cause, and the effect persists after the cause is removed. That's not what the First Way is about.
I like the example of a chain better than a train, so I'm using it. A weight is being lifted into the air by a chain. The final chain link is what is lifting the weight, but in reality it's not - that chain link has no power in of itself to lift the weight. It's being lifted by the link in front of it. And that link's ability to lift is contingent upon the link in front of it, and so on, until you get to whatever is pulling the chain, let's say a hoist. The chain's ability to lift is granted to it by this "first mover" (I know it doesn't actually terminate there, just an illustration).
What would happen if the hoist was removed? The weight and chain would all hit the ground, because the chain's ability to lift the weight is entirely contingent upon the hoist acting upon it. Proposing an infinite number of links fails, because each link is granted its ability to lift by the next link - each is a secondary cause. Without a first mover to grant causal lifting power to the chain, the chain can't lift, even if it is infinite in length.
That is the difference between an essentially ordered series and a discussion of causes leading into the past. Time between the cause and effect is irrelevant to the essentially ordered series in the sense that the only relevant criteria is, will the effect be sustainable if the cause is removed? If the answer is no, it is an essentially ordered series. Unless you are discussing what it is keeping you alive, your causes and their causes aren't relevant to the First Way.
God acting in the past to create the universe is a different argument than God being required to sustain the universe, which is what the First Way argues.
Stardusty: "There are no such statements in the text."
There are such statements in other texts. Aquinas believed it theoretically possible for the universe to be of infinite age, which would negate the need for a first mover in the temporal sense. He also says the following: "In efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity per se (essentially ordered series) - thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are per se required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, and the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity."
What it boils down to is this: If there can be literally no time in between the cause and effect in an essentially ordered series, then the First Way fails.
If the qualifier for an essentially ordered series is whether or not the effect can be sustained without the cause, then the First Way does not fail on the objection about time.
If I move at a constant velocity between point A and point B, say, 10 meters apart and it takes me 10 seconds then I am moving at 1m/s. If I consider 3m in 3s that is still 1m/s. In each case I perform the division of m/s. But what happens when s goes to precisely 0? The expression is no longer valid, it becomes meaningless and will throw an error if you enter it into a calculator.
That's a conceptual problem.
There is a reason that college level physics requires calculus as a pre-req. If you're using a calculator you're using the wrong tool. If you're using calculus you're using the right tool. It appears you did not watch the video. Why not?
" Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics." --Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?
Physicists and engineers routinely calculate instantaneous velocity. It appears that this comes as a surprise to you. If you cannot understand this, you can't fathom the motion discussed in First Way.
>> "Thus Aquinas arrives at a first mover, necessarily in the past."
No. You should differentiate between the first mover and the ensuing cause. The first mover must exist in the present since it cannot be changed by another. Immutability means it cannot cease to exist.
What it boils down to is this: If there can be literally no time in between the cause and effect in an essentially ordered series, then the First Way fails.
I disagree with your assessment. I'm not sure how you came to it, but although it is the instrumental part of the essentially ordered series that is doing the work, simultaneity is used to illustrate this.
I was addressing the notion that on the train example, since there is a bit of time delay between the engine moving and each car moving (flex and play in the couplers, etc) that it somehow refutes the First Way. My point was that the effect doesn't literally have to happen at the precise microsecond as the cause, but the cause must always be present during the effect.
I was addressing the notion that on the train example, since there is a bit of time delay between the engine moving and each car moving (flex and play in the couplers, etc) that it somehow refutes the First Way.
OK. I think the train analogy got off track (heh) anyway. The point was merely that the caboose is being moved by the car ahead of it, and that being moved by the car ahead of it and so on until the engine is reached which terminates the series. All of the cars comprise a single mobile of moving movers that can never move unless there is an engine. If someone wants to miss that point they could in any number of ways.
"To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past."
Here is the sentence: "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
"to arrive" is an infinitive in this sentence, not a verb and so carries no tense past or otherwise. The verb tense in this sentence is the present as indicated by "is".
If you don't know what an infinitive is, click on the link.
@bmiller Yeah, the train analogy got derailed. The skeptics misread my comments and the derailing occurred when they took off to argue against a strawman. Here's the comment that got it started I think...
Me: "Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time, imparting causal force acting upon it by the engine."
The skeptics interpreted this to mean that there was no time delay between the motion of the engine and the motion of the caboose, but my comment doesn't say that. My statement references the time when the CABOOSE moves, not when the engine moves. At that time, the causal force is present.
Cal was especially inept. He doubled down on his inept reading skills by calling me names and ridiculing my ability to understand physics. He cannot read English or take the time to ask questions. I guess skepticism does that. The irony is wonderful.
I thought the train analogy was helpful. I thought the skeptics would wake up and realize that a time delay between the Prime Mover acting and the object being moved doesn't affect the FW argument. The argument is independent of time. No matter how long or short the train is and no matter how much time passes (last car motion vs first car motion), ALL motion is caused by the Prime Mover.
Since the argument is independent of time, the universe can be old, young or it can be eternal and the answer is the same - ALL motion is caused by the Prime Mover.
Legion: "Not in the same sense as an accidentally ordered series. Remove the first mover in an essentially ordered series, and the entire series fails. That's why I've said that the cause must exist at the same time as the effect - which is different than saying the effect must occur at the same time as the cause. "
In what sense does a star that has ceased to exist still exist that caused the effect of its emissions being recorded today?
It seems that the only way that it exists is to say that its effect is being perceived now. But that is just a tautology -- what is perceived now is perceived now.
Stardusty: "But what caused me? And what caused that? "But this cannot go on to infinity"" Legion:I" believe this is likely a different question than what the First Way addresses."
Then the First Way fails to address the ramifications of the dilemma it introduces. Here's the problem:
1. It is impossible to talk about motion without introducing a prior reference frame. (Motion requires two reference frames, one of which is necessarily prior to the other. This is inescapable in any discussion of motion.) 2. It is therefore impossible to discuss a first mover without going back in time. 3. Any discussion of a first mover is necessarily about what has happened before (relating to time).
To be clear, if the First Way ignores the fact that motion necessarily refers to a sequence in which frames are distinguished by time, then the First Way is unsound. (Premises which contradict our observations or are not supported by observation are unsound.)
Thus, to insist that the First Way discusses motion but NOT MOTION REGARDING TIME is to declare that the First Way is unsound (or incoherent -- fine line, I suppose).
I'd guess that most of the previous dozen or so apologist comments (Stevek's little attempts are perhaps the most egregious, and in a contest that includes bmiller that is something) all suffer from the same problem of trying to gloss over this flagrant problem.
Motion requires time.
If the First Way discusses motion, and not time, then the First Way is unsound (or incoherent).
I can explain this in greater detail, but I suggest that apologists try to accept this because it's inescapable.
^^^ However, the motion discussed in the First Way is the particular motion of particular things that exist in the part of time called the "now". So material things that exist now that are moving are part of the discussion. If the material moving things cause other material moving things to move "now", then they could be part of an essentially ordered series which also is discussed.
Non-existent things of the past that are not moving are not part of the "now" and are therefore not part of the discussion. In a some sense they may be considered responsible for present movement when considered as temporally ordered, but that is not the sense the First Way considers. That type of series would be considered a accidentally ordered series which is the type of series we've been stressing is not under discussion in the First Way.
@Legion @bmiller This blog post from a Christian astrophysicist said something that appears to relate to the FW. I thought you might find it interesting. Basically, a huge amount of energy is being added to the universe to sustain a constant density. If you consider outside the universe as being without time then no motion is occurring (motion entails time). So what we have is an unmoved mover sustaining the universe.
Basically, a huge amount of energy is being added to the universe to sustain a constant density.
Thanks for the article. She did a good job of explaining the background as to why the mysterious dark matter is postulated and the huge extent of it. Of course I'm sure our atheist friends would object to her speculations.
In return, HEREis an article that you may find interesting from a well-known physicist-mathematician-cosmologist.
bmiller: "No problem. I'm sure no one disagrees. The First Way discusses both time and motion."
Then you should communicate this to the other apologists:
Legion: "I'm the one saying [the First Way is] NOT about temporal origins."
Stevek: "I said that the force from the engine is moving the caboose in the present moment - and that statement is 100% true. You are instead looking at when the force originated from the engine, but I wasn't doing that."
----
The First Way necessarily involves time, and that is because the First Way tries to explain motion.
Trying to discuss motion in the present, without reference to the prior events which gave rise to the present event, is to present a first mover that cannot exist.
Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause.
I'm no physicist but isn't there sustained subatomic motion?
stevek: "Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause."
The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation. This is why your silly assertion that you do understand modern physics (all evidence to the contrary) is so obviously false -- why it is so obvious that you don't understand how objects move as described since Newton. The statement above, if incorporated into the First Way, makes the First Way unsound -- and, as you have agreed, an argument that violates the principles of good argument fails.
@Cal, >> "The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation."
What controlled observation shows that there is NO cause acting to sustain a motion that never changes? I'm aware of Newton. What I'm not aware of is an observed absence of causation.
Stevek: "Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause."
Cal: "The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation."
How so?
Cal: "In what sense does a star that has ceased to exist still exist that caused the effect of its emissions being recorded today?"
That's an accidentally ordered series - once the light has left the star, the star can vanish but the existing light will still be detectable.
A star in an essentially ordered series would be more like human life on Earth being contingent upon the sun. Human life would end very quickly with the sun's extinguishing, unlike light that has already left it.
If an effect cannot be sustained without the cause coexisting with it and acting upon it, it is an essentially ordered series. These are what the First Way discusses, as opposed to effects that persist even if the cause is removed.
Stevek: "Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause." Cal: "The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation." Legion: "How so? "
Man-launched satellites in orbit around earth.
Only in apologetics land would I have to answer this question.
A net force equal to zero does not mean there is a complete absence of causality acting on a body in motion. It just means all forces are equal and opposite.
Are there active forces sustaining the equilibrium to prevent the motion from changing - or is there a complete absence of active causes?
Is there an active cause working to sustain deep space so that objects put into motion continue with the same motion? I don't think Newton's theory addresses this question.
stevek: "How do you observe an absence of causation in that situation, Cal? I suspect you're bluffing but I'll give you a chance."
Scientifically.
I still find it amazing that in this day and age apologists here seem to think that:
1. Angels push things around 2. Aristotlean physics has not been supplanted by a more accurate (and less intuitive) description of physics 3. a scientific process for understanding reality (objectivity, reliability, verifiability, alongside Occam's razor and a few other abiding principles) can be safely ignored in favor of arm-chair ignorance.
stevek: "Is there an active cause working to sustain deep space so that objects put into motion continue with the same motion? I don't think Newton's theory addresses this question."
Please go on. Your findings are truly groundbreaking.
Bluffing by replying "scientifically" is still bluffing as far as I'm concerned. You said an absence of causation has been observed. Show us the observed absence.
You could be correct, but all I'm seeing is your posturing.
@Cal, Your arguments aren't convincing because you wantonly avoid analyzing them with the same rigor that you demand the FW argument be subjected to. The FW could very well prove to be a failed argument. I agree with Legion that if it fails it won't bother me too much. I have no emotional stake in it. I've lived without it for most of my life.
If you want to show that it's wrong, you'll need a good argument. Hand waving isn't a good argument. "Scientifically" isn't a good argument. Ridicule isn't a good argument.
stevek: "Your arguments aren't convincing because you wantonly avoid analyzing them with the same rigor that you demand the FW argument be subjected to."
What arguments? I'm offering criticism, of the First Way, pointing out the ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument. Recently, I'm pointing out that if the First Way is about motion and yet the First Way is not about time, then the First Way fails to be sound -- motion is necessarily about time.
stevek: "The FW could very well prove to be a failed argument. I agree with Legion that if it fails it won't bother me too much. I have no emotional stake in it. I've lived without it for most of my life."
As has been pointed out, the FW fails on multiple levels. It's a critics' smorgasbord, really.
stevek: "If you want to show that it's wrong, you'll need a good argument."
Nope. All I need do is point to the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. I thought you agreed to this already.
stevek: "Hand waving isn't a good argument."
I agree. So why are you handwaving instead of protesting without providing any meaningful response?
stevek: "Scientifically" isn't a good argument."
It's a good and appropriate response to a vapid and seemingly thoughtless question.
stevek: "Ridicule isn't a good argument."
Ridicule is an effective tool with apologists, because apologists are rarely (ever?) persuaded by argument. Otherwise, they would not be apologists.
stevek: "Motion occurs over time so the FW is about time in that sense. Problem resolved."
You should tell these two guys below, then. They've going on for some time about how they are the ones who understand the FW, and that it's not about prior events.
Legion: "I'm the one saying [the First Way is] NOT about temporal origins." Stevek: "I said that the force from the engine is moving the caboose in the present moment - and that statement is 100% true. You are instead looking at when the force originated from the engine, but I wasn't doing that."
The FW deals with motion, which entails that it is about time as it relates to motion. The FW does not deal with the temporal origins of any specific motion so I'm not sure how the FW can be about temporal origins. I think a person can infer something about temporal origins from the FW argument, but that inference isn't part of the argument proper.
Temporal origins: not a good criticism Time delay: not a good criticism Newton: not a good criticism Modern science: not a good criticism bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism
SteveK said... Motion occurs over time so the FW is about time in that sense. Problem resolved. June 20, 2017 12:56 PM
--Yes, that reasoning is rather clear, so it is indeed difficult to understand the apparent denials of it.
Even if one speculates that everything is continuously being pushed about by some sort of sustaining force god that god still must have acted in the past to sustain the motion that occurred in the past.
The examples in the first way are clearly of temporal events, such as fire being used to make wood that is not burning then burn. The notion that one lights wood on fire and the wood burns all instantaneously is absurd.
"whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other;"
Anyone who reads the examples provided, then reads that text, and comes away thinking all the fire and motion and subsequent motion and arriving at a mover all happens in zero time...well, that would be bizarre reading and thinking indeed.
" Temporal origins: not a good criticism Time delay: not a good criticism Newton: not a good criticism Modern science: not a good criticism bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism" --How about begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, false premise. non sequitur, and incomplete argument?
If the First Way excludes a prior (past) reference frame then its notion of motion is unsound or incoherent. Arguments with unsound or incoherent premises fail (per your agreement).
steveK: "Time delay: not a good criticism"
If the First Way excludes the understanding that things in motion occur over time, and not at the same time, then its notion of motion is unsound or incoherent. Arguments with unsound or incoherent premises fail (per your agreement).
stevek: "Newton: not a good criticism"
If the First Way doesn't accept Newton's introduction of the idea that things in motion tend to stay in motion, an idea that is tested through observation (see my satellite reference above), then its notion of motion is unsound. Arguments with unsound or incoherent premises fail (per your agreement).
Modern science: not a good criticism
Failure to understand modern science, in particular physics, is the best explanation for your confusion. Modern science is not a criticism per se -- it's a shared tool that can be used to identify bad premises, however. You seem confused about the role of science in testing premises for soundness, as well as what constitutes a sound (verified by observation) premise. You seem like a highly confused person -- which seems to be the fallow ground upon which the silly First Way can take hold.
stevek: "bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism"
Don't confuse the fact that you don't seem to understand modern physics with my bluffing. Physics is reality, and reality doesn't bluff.
It's not posturing to point out the ways in which we think others are mistaken.
As pointed out upthread, ridicule actually is effective for beliefs that have been adopted based on social and psychological dynamics rather than a more dispassionate-based process.
@Cal 1) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time, but does not discuss when the motion originated. Resolved. 2) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time. Resolved. 3) The FW does not reject or conflict with Newton. Resolved. 4) The FW does not contradict modern science. Resolved.
Your continued posturing, bluffing and ridiculing doesn't affect me at all, other than it sometimes make me laugh.
Anyone who reads the examples provided, then reads that text, and comes away thinking all the fire and motion and subsequent motion and arriving at a mover all happens in zero time...well, that would be bizarre reading and thinking indeed.
The examples show that the motion of the moving movers is simulaneous with and essential to the motion of the entire series as it is happening now, from moment to moment. Perhaps if you point to the exact phrases in the argument where you find things happening in the ancient past we can resolve it. After all there is no dispute among experts on this point.
stevek: "1) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time, but does not discuss when the motion originated. Resolved."
If the First Way is to follow motion back to its source, it necessarily goes back in time. If the First Way is to arrive at a first mover, it necessarily must go back to a when. If the First Way is to go back to an origin (a first mover), it necessarily goes back to a when.
You simply don't understand the argument (and its ramifications) well enough to discuss it, let alone defend it.
Sad.
2) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time. Resolved. 3) The FW does not reject or conflict with Newton. Resolved. 4) The FW does not contradict modern science. Resolved.
Cal: "If the First Way is to follow motion back to its source, it necessarily goes back in time."
" Why would we have to travel back into the past to figure out why a caboose is moving?" --Because the caboose does not move at all in zero time.
To detect the motion of the caboose requires that one notes the position of the caboose in the past, and notes the position of the caboose in the present, and notes that those positions are different, therefore the caboose moved.
Further, if we wish to explore the motion of the caboose we must ask if the caboose has always been moving, and if not, then the caboose was at some time in the past stationary, then at a later time in the past the caboose was caused to move.
If the locomotive caused the first motion of the caboose then the locomotive is the first mover of the caboose and the locomotive necessarily first moved the caboose at some time in the past, else acceleration was infinite and motion of the caboose occurred in zero time with both of those notions being irrational.
It definitely is like talking to a little kid, except when I talk to my little kid, she exhibits far greater understanding than the skeptics here. Extremely sad.
If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?
Legion: "Why would we have to travel back into the past to figure out why a caboose is moving?"
Literally time travel? No.
Understand that motion perceived with the present as a reference frame NECESSARILY requires a prior (back in time) reference frame, yes.
See Stardusty's response above for further explication.
I honestly think that Stevek et al. are too stupid to understand this simple ramification of the argument. You seem more capable, so your bafflement is harder to explain.
Prior (and prior, and prior, and on and on and on) is not only a necessary ramification of the existential dilemma that the First Way tries to answer (and fails to resolve, for the reasons enumerated), but it is also plainly in the original text that you have said you were willing to defend.
The expressed bafflement concerning this obvious and essential component of the argument, as if discovering this fact for the first time, makes it even more absurd that the apologists here would try to lay claim to an advanced understanding of the First Way. In fact, the apologists here seem to be struggling with even grasping the age-old dilemma that the First Way tried (and fails) to resolve.
Legion: "If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?"
This is just another way of saying that you don't understand the dilemma, or the argument.
The First Way is not about what will happen in the future. Give it that much. The First Way tries (and fails) to resolve the existential question of origins -- and origins involve real things that occupy space, and space involves time, and so the First Way is necessarily about GOING BACK in time.
I know that this fact will be easier for you understand if I were to present you with some face-saving way of accepting this fact without acknowledging your awkward ignorance, but I can't think of one. Or maybe your obstinacy (pride?) has just exhausted my charity.
But really, spend some time and think this stuff through. You can be better than this.
>> "The First Way tries (and fails) to resolve the existential question of origins"
Nope. It fails that because it doesn't try to discuss time beyond the concept of motion occurring over time. The FW argument applies to today and to billions of years ago. There's no specific "when" or where being discussed. There's no discussion of how long the train is. There's no specific discussion of when the engine left the station.
Over the years I've done many physics problems of bodies in motion where I had to answer many different questions about that situation. I don't recall my instructor requiring that we go back in time to resolve when the a cause originated.
stevek: "Over the years I've done many physics problems of bodies in motion where I had to answer many different questions about that situation. I don't recall my instructor requiring that we go back in time to resolve when the a cause originated"
LOL. You still want to keep on pretending that you took and passed a real physics class at the same time you write things that demonstrate you have no real grasp of physics.
Legion: "Will a caboose sustain its movement if it is decoupled from the engine?"
An earth bound train operating under normal earth conditions is subject to friction, so, no-- an object that doesn't have a propelling force equal to the forces of friction will decelerate.
This fact addresses the issue of the origins of motion how?
Does a satellite launched outside the earth's atmosphere fall to earth once its launch system has expired?
I though you were going to try and defend the First Way. It seems more and more like apologists would rather talk about anything but.
Cue the, "What you really don't understand about the First Way is..." hand waving.
Try and show some focus. Follow up on what you said you would do. Otherwise, it just looks like you're unable to pursue a line of thinking that makes your prior vows and appraisals seem so subsequently silly.
You mentioned earlier how you have changed your mind about some things. While I think that is a good story, it's getting harder and harder to reconcile that story with your stubbornness and denial here.
Cal: "An earth bound train operating under normal earth conditions is subject to friction, so, no-- an object that doesn't have a propelling force equal to the forces of friction will decelerate."
Good. That's correct, a caboose will not continue moving unless its motion is sustained by something else.
Notice at no point in this analysis is one required to analyze when its motion began, but rather one must analyze what is driving that motion at the moment it is occurring. Know why that is? Because the First Way does not concern itself with when motion began - it concerns itself with why motion is sustained. Why is the rock moving? Because the staff is pushing it. Why is the staff moving? Because the hand is pushing it. And so on. That doesn't necessitate an inquiry into when someone picked the staff up to push the rock, it only requires that a staff be pushing a rock at the moment in question.
If a given motion literally required nothing else for its motion to be sustained, then it would not be covered by the First Way. If a motion is contingent upon something else in order to be sustained, then there must be a termination point in which something is driving the motion without itself being driven by something else, because a simultaneous infinity of secondary drivers would result in no motion. That's the First Way. There must be a first mover at the same time as the motion in question.
It's like this. A is in motion. Why is A in motion? Because B is moving it. But B is being moved by C, so B is a secondary mover. But C is contingent upon D, so C is a secondary mover, and so on. It doesn't matter how many secondary movers you throw into the mix, if there is no first mover that is not contingent upon something else, then there will be no motion at A. It doesn't matter when B began moving A. It doesn't matter if B has been moving A for eternity. If there is no first mover, secondary movers are powerless to move anything else, thus the first mover must be concurrent with A. What happened in the past is irrelevant to whether A can sustain its motion without the first mover.
stevek: "Unlike Cal, I've actually done the math to resolve that question :) "
Really? That's actually a fairly complex physics problem. Care to show your math on that one? Or were you just, you know, lying.
I wonder how your psyche will reconcile you realizing that you don't actually know about the problems you say you've resolved, and what you'll tell yourself as you desperately try to look them up now.
Pretend pretend pretend.
Sometimes I wonder what apologists think when they pretend? That it's okay to lie to others and oneself because....?
Mostly I imagine they just don't think. Explains a great deal, I can tell you.
@Cal, >> "Light continues to travel through space long after the star that emitted it has died."
That reminds me, you were going to show us an observed absence of causation. I refuse to accept the logical fallacy that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
stevek: "That reminds me, you were going to show us an observed absence of causation."
Quote me stating I would do that.
Or are you just a little liar?
stevek: "Unlike Cal, I've actually done the math to resolve that question :) " Me: "Really? That's actually a fairly complex physics problem. Care to show your math on that one? Or were you just, you know, lying."
You going to follow up on my question? Or are you just a little liar?
I pretty much can't think of you ever saying something that is correct, or following up on demonstrating one of your silly claims.
stevek: "To verify your claim you can either do that or accept the logical fallacy that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which do you prefer?"
Poor little lying stevek caught in another lie.
Poor little lying stevek can't quote me saying I would "going to show us an observed absence of causation," because, apparently, poor little lying stevek thinks that Occams razor (a principle of science) is a logical fallacy.
@Cal, You said that the FW was unsound because certain things have been observed. Now you're saying something about a principle of science, which is philosophy.
Is the FW unsound because of philosophy or observation? You need to spell it out.
stevek: "Over the years I've done many physics problems of bodies in motion where I had to answer many different questions about that situation. I don't recall my instructor requiring that we go back in time to resolve when the a cause originated"
WTF?
Where did you take physics, Trump U? The university of matchbook covers?
That time is typically designated as t=0.
In other problems it is sometimes called "at some time t"
In the typical undergraduate physics of motion problem the cause is powder burning to fire a bullet, or a a ball colliding with another ball, or an arm that trows a ball.
" It definitely is like talking to a little kid, except when I talk to my little kid, she exhibits far greater understanding than the skeptics here. Extremely sad. If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?" --Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling.
If it were a rocket engine in space then yes, the spacecraft keeps moving.
It takes a special kind of superstition to suppose angels keep nudging everything along.
Stardusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling."
We must live in different universes, because I have never seen a train moving without an engine. Of course, water freezes into ice in my universe, too. Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1601 – 1800 of 3162 Newer› Newest»bmiller: "While you are entitled to your opinion about what can be and cannot be talked about, the fact is that the First Way talks about motion as it exists after it starts and before it ends but does not talk about it's start nor it's end. "
You don't do credit to the First Way, which actually does "talk" about motion at its end (for the purposes of the First Way, the end is the present) as well as its start (the first mover is the start -- didn't you know this? ). You don't even know what the First Way is about, and if you don't know what the First Way is even about, you can't be expected to see its shortcomings.
Sad.
@Cal,
You don't do credit to the First Way, which actually does "talk" about motion at its end (for the purposes of the First Way, the end is the present) as well as its start (the first mover is the start -- didn't you know this? ). You don't even know what the First Way is about, and if you don't know what the First Way is even about, you can't be expected to see its shortcomings.
That's an interesting take. Why don't you expand on why you say this.
bmiller: "That's an interesting take. Why don't you expand on why you say this."
Because I have found that you're not a minimally capable or sincere interlocutor. And it's a waste of my time to repeat what I understand when I see that doing so will have no practical effect.
@Cal
Because I have found that you're not a minimally capable or sincere interlocutor. And it's a waste of my time to repeat what I understand when I see that doing so will have no practical effect.
Well suit yourself.
In the meantime, I've tried to go through the OP's version of the argument, identify each verb and classify whether the verb is past tense, present tense, or future tense. I think perhaps some of the confusion comes about due to the use of the passive voice in the present tense within the argument.
One would expect to see verbs like "had moved", "has moved", "was moving", "has been moving" etc if activity from a past time was a consideration of the First Way. We don't see those verb tenses.
(1) is, moves, moves----------present tense
(2) is moved, is moved----------present tense (passive voice),present tense
(2a) is moved, is in, is moved----------present tense (passive voice),present tense
(2b) moves----------present tense
(2c) is----------present tense
(2d) is, is, is----------present tense
(2di) makes, is ... burning, to be burning, is moved/altered----------present tense
(2e) is, be----------present tense
(2ei) is, burning, burning, freezing----------present tense
(2f) is, is moving, is moved moves----------present tense, present tense (passive voice)
(2g) follows, is moved, is moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice)
(3) moves, is moved, must be moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice)
(4) proceed----------present tense
(4a) would be, would move----------present tense conditional
(4b) do not move, are moved, is not moved, is moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice)
(5) is, arrive, (come to), is not moved----------present tense, present tense (passive voice)
(5a) is, consider----------present tense
Did the OP translate correctly? A side-by-side comparison of Latin to English can be found HERE.
This translation is from Aquinas's Dominican Order.
bmiller said...
" In the meantime, I've tried to go through the OP's version of the argument, identify each verb and classify whether the verb is past tense, present tense, or future tense. "
--Well, ok, but the tense is only a part of the problem. To determine the logical application of the various forms of "move" also requires the sense in which the word is used as well as the object.
To make all this clear Oxford uses sentences intended to remove ambiguities of usage. Aquinas fails to be clear due to the paucity of words in the First Way.
Haines provides a link as a source for notation but that link also has a translation that shows important omissions by Haines as well as different translations.
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
For example Haines begins his outline with:
"For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves."
But the link begins with:
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Any particular translation, and any particular interpretation of the sense, tense, and object in each case fails for associated reasons. Any way you slice it, Aquinas fails very glaringly.
Similarly, any particular assertion of the motion of the first mover itself also fails for associated reasons, as I have outlined above June 07, 2017 7:00 AM and several times prior.
Try to think of all the different ways these words can be used:
motion
move
moved
mover
movers
moves
How does each potential usage affect the argument in context? How many permutations of interpretation are there?
June 08, 2017 12:19 PM
Here is a little help from Oxford:
move
verb
1no object, usually with adverbial of direction Go in a specified direction or manner; change position.
‘she moved to the door’
‘I heard him moving about upstairs’
1.1with object Change the place, position, or state of.
‘she moved the tray to a side table’
‘can you move your car so I can get mine out?’
1.2 Change one's place of residence or work.
‘his family moved to London when he was a child’
with object ‘they moved house four days after the baby was born’
1.3 (of a player) change the position of a piece in a board game.
‘White has forced his opponent to move’
with object ‘if Black moves his bishop he loses a pawn’
1.4informal Depart; start off.
‘let's move—it's time we started shopping’
1.5in imperative move itinformal Hurry up.
‘come on—move it!’
1.6informal Go quickly.
‘Kennings was really moving when he made contact with a tyre at the hairpin and flipped over’
1.7 (with reference to merchandise) sell or be sold.
with object ‘booksellers should easily be able to move this biography of Lincoln’
2no object Make progress; develop in a particular manner or direction.
‘aircraft design had moved forward a long way’
‘councillors are anxious to get things moving as soon as possible’
2.1 Change from one state, opinion, or activity to another.
‘the school moved over to the new course in 1987’
with object ‘she deftly moved the conversation to safer territory’
2.2 Take action.
‘hardliners may yet move against him, but their success might be limited’
2.3move in/within Spend one's time in (a particular sphere) or among (a particular group of people)
‘she moved in the pop and art worlds’
3with object and infinitive Influence or prompt (someone) to do something.
‘his deep love of music moved him to take lessons with Dr Hill’
3.1with object Arouse a strong feeling, especially of sorrow or sympathy, in (someone)
‘she felt deeply moved by this picture of his plight’
3.2archaic with object Stir up (an emotion) in someone.
‘he justly moves one's derision’
4with object Propose for discussion and resolution at a meeting or legislative assembly.
‘she intends to move an amendment to the Bill’
with clause ‘I beg to move that this House deplores the government's economic policies’
4.1archaic Apply formally to (a court or assembly) for something.
‘his family moved the Special Court for adequate ‘maintenance expenses’ to run the household’
5with object Empty (the bowels)
‘if you haven't moved your bowels today you'd better do it now’
June 08, 2017 12:19 PM
Stardusty: "--Well, ok, but the tense is only a part of the problem. To determine the logical application of the various forms of "move" also requires the sense in which the word is used as well as the object."
It was my guess that bmiller thinks that because the First Way uses present tense verbs that therefore motion doesn't necessarily entail more than one reference frame. Because, well, grammar?
Yes, that is the level of "thinking" that I think he's operating at.
@Strawdusty,
For example Haines begins his outline with:
"For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves."
But the link begins with:
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Is your point here that the OP left out the first sentence in his formal presentation his outline while only alluding to it in his introduction? Or do you consider the slightly different phrasing of the sentences that are similar to be confusing?
How does each potential usage affect the argument in context? How many permutations of interpretation are there?
None that I am aware of among the scholarly sources we've cited in this discussion.
Here is a little help from Oxford:.....
Well, Legion already cited the background categories that fell under the word "motion" for Aquinas and Aristotle. So there is no need to be confused. You already have a link to Aquinas's commentary on Aristotle if care to check.
@Cal,
It was my guess that bmiller thinks that because the First Way uses present tense verbs that therefore motion doesn't necessarily entail more than one reference frame. Because, well, grammar?
Yes, that is the level of "thinking" that I think he's operating at.
Well yes, I consider grammar when reading a sentence. When a sentence uses present tense, to me, that indicates that it is not referring to events in the past or future but instead to the present. Apparently others think otherwise.
Do you think "reference frames" make present tense statements into past tense statements?
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
For example Haines begins his outline with:
"For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves."
But the link begins with:
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
" Is your point here that the OP left out the first sentence in his formal presentation his outline while only alluding to it in his introduction? Or do you consider the slightly different phrasing of the sentences that are similar to be confusing?"
--I anticipated this question prior to stating "for example".
Haines leaves out an important line.
Haines also uses an ambiguous translation. To say "something moves" can mean that something causes motion, or it can mean that objects move and then stop, or it can mean that objects are observed to presently be in motion.
The wording at the link is much more clear, stating "are in motion". But that calls for the question of the potential biases of the translators. Is the ambiguous term "moves" the more accurate translation indicating that Aquinas actually spoke ambiguously, or is the clear term "are in motion" the more accurate translation meaning Aquinas spoke unambiguously but the Haines translation is poor, or is the Haines translation accurate and the linked translation the result of the biases of the translator such that he/she simply picked one particular interpretation?
The fact that these differences of translations and all their related question exist makes the reliability of any particular analysis dubious.
But go ahead and pick your favorite, I can dismantle it in any case.
SP How does each potential usage affect the argument in context? How many permutations of interpretation are there?
" None that I am aware of among the scholarly sources we've cited in this discussion."
--Each source tends to pick a favorite view and present it as "the" view.
But it is not as simple as that. A key assertion is:
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Here the word "mover" is ambiguous. A "mover" can be one who moves others, or it can be one who has been in motion, or both. "put in motion by not other" does not clarify the question as to whether this asserted first mover is itself in motion.
This glaring ambiguity or omission leads immediately to at least these 3 problems:
Suppose:
1.The first mover was always moving.
Then motion can proceed to infinity after all and there is no need for a first mover. This violates the First Way prohibition of motion regressing to infinity.
2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move.
Then something can move itself after all, another violation of the First Way.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
Not only does this violate the examples of the First Way, but it violates the notion put forth that the realization of a potential is motion. If the universe was motionales and then the first mover moved something in the universe then the first mover was first potentially going to move something and then the first mover actually moved something, and thus satisfies the very definition of change and motion put forth variously here. Thus, to change something else a thing must itself change.
Since all three choices render the First Way self contradictory we may wonder if Aquinas was intentionally deceptive in this glaring defect or if he simply did not have the depth of thought required to address it.
June 09, 2017 2:50 PM
@Strawdusty,
Haines leaves out an important line.
Haines also uses an ambiguous translation. To say "something moves" can mean that something causes motion, or it can mean that objects move and then stop, or it can mean that objects are observed to presently be in motion.
The wording at the link is much more clear, stating "are in motion". But that calls for the question of the potential biases of the translators. Is the ambiguous term "moves" the more accurate translation indicating that Aquinas actually spoke ambiguously, or is the clear term "are in motion" the more accurate translation meaning Aquinas spoke unambiguously but the Haines translation is poor, or is the Haines translation accurate and the linked translation the result of the biases of the translator such that he/she simply picked one particular interpretation?
Here is the original Latin for the sentence you discuss:
Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo.
The verb movērī is the present passive infinitive of the verb moveō. Since the tense is present and not future, it cannot mean that an object will "then stop". Since the voice is passive, the things or thing is not the cause of the verbal action, so "something causing motion" can likewise be eliminated. This leaves 'present motion' as the common intrepetation for both versions. Of course just comparing the 2 English versions one could converge on the same solution by merely rejecting perceived ambiguities between the 2 and settling on the common interpretation.
Glad I could once again help resolve ambiguities. ☺
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Here the word "mover" is ambiguous. A "mover" can be one who moves others, or it can be one who has been in motion, or both. "put in motion by not other" does not clarify the question as to whether this asserted first mover is itself in motion.
It is not ambiguous if you recall this previous part of the argument: "Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."
So a mover that is not moved by another cannot be moving.
But you use the phrase "or it can be one who has been in motion" which asserts that the argument refers somehow to the past.
Where in the argument do you see warrant for asserting it refers to the past?
Again you repeat this here.
1.The first mover was always moving.
2.The first mover wasmotionless and then began to move.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
Here is a site that you can refer to to find the tenses in question.
bmiller said...
" Where in the argument do you see warrant for asserting it refers to the past?"
--The first motion imparted by the first mover was necessarily in the past.
1.The first mover was always moving.
2.The first mover wasmotionless and then began to move.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
All of which violate the first way and definitions cited as from Aquinas outside the First Way.
June 10, 2017 11:06 AM
@Strawdusty,
--The first motion imparted by the first mover was necessarily in the past.
1.The first mover was always moving.
2.The first mover wasmotionless and then began to move.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
All of which violate the first way and definitions cited as from Aquinas outside the First Way.
None of this is part of the First Way. None of this is part of the Five Ways.
The First Way as well as the rest of the Five Ways argue only from what is happening in the present. If you think otherwise, you need to cite it.
@Legion,
Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present and is willing to move on to the next statement. I don't anticipate that Strawdusty will.
bmiller said...
" Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present "
--Now it comes back to me, this nonsense about the First Way not discussing the past.
How absurd.
"If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
A first mover would have to have imparted the first motion in the past, duh.
June 10, 2017 8:02 PM
@Stardusty, we are looking at your garden-variety stupid, combined with dogmatic and hierarchical-based thinking.
Apologists don't explore thoughts and test them against reality; they repeat slogans, and wait for group approval.
And this is why apologists always (always) fear ridicule more than truth; they know that humor and scorn can lacerate the bonds of their cabal. And because apologists are most concerned with belonging to a group, and reaping the rewards they envision from that group's power, ridicule of their group's beliefs undermines those cherished hopes.
That's my operating explanation, anyway. I've found it works pretty well in predicting how these discussions behave.
bmiller: "Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present and is willing to move on to the next statement. I don't anticipate that Strawdusty will."
An idio -- imagining that casting more light on his persistent obtuseness, and making plaintive gestures to be backed up his group -- will somehow make black turn into white.
I would say it's pathetic, but in these days in which we live it's more accurately described as ominous.
@Strawdusty,
A first mover would have to have imparted the first motion in the past, duh.
But that is not what the First Way discusses.
Every word of what you quoted is a discussion of a series that makes up a mobile, moving series in the present. Not a single word about any past action.
There is no ambiguity about this. There are no verbs indicating past action. There is no dispute among scholars. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
If you insist present tense verbs imply past action then you have simply stopped speaking English.
@Cal,
bmiller: "Perhaps Cal is willing to consider the First Way is discussing what is happening in the present and is willing to move on to the next statement. I don't anticipate that Strawdusty will."
An idio -- imagining that casting more light on his persistent obtuseness, and making plaintive gestures to be backed up his group -- will somehow make black turn into white.
Well, you've told us that you will no longer interact with me and so you've shown by refusing to answer any of my questions. Legion had offered to go line-by-line with you through the argument and that was happening. Maybe he wants to continue that and maybe not. I am offering to step aside if he wants to continue.
Do you want to discuss with me how an argument that has no verbs implying past action somehow implies past action? Sounds like making something white turn black to me.
bmiller said...
" If you insist present tense verbs imply past action then you have simply stopped speaking English."
--How incredibly stupid, or dishonest, or both.
June 11, 2017 8:13 AM
bmiller: "Do you want to discuss with me how an argument that has no verbs implying past action somehow implies past action?"
Nope. Because you're an idiot. As evidence, see your comments.
bmiller: "Sounds like making something white turn black to me."
mkay.
@Strawdusty,
" If you insist present tense verbs imply past action then you have simply stopped speaking English."
--How incredibly stupid, or dishonest, or both.
You offered me a passage in which all verbs are in the present tense. You did not disagree that any of the verbs are in the present tense (if so, which ones?). The passage actually includes the example of a hand moving (present tense) a staff and then you said this:
"A first mover would have to have imparted the first motion in the past, duh."
So I have to conclude that somehow you find past action taking place in present tense verbs.
Aquinas is summarizing Aristotle regarding the Unmoved Mover in the First Way, so let's look HERE at the section from Physics where the particular type of series of movers being moved is discussed:
Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us take the case in which a thing is in locomotion and is moved by something that is itself in motion, and that again is moved by something else that is in motion, and that by something else, and so on continually: then the series cannot go on to infinity, but there must be some first movent. For let us suppose that this is not so and take the series to be infinite. Let A then be moved by B, B by G, G by D, and so on, each member of the series being moved by that which comes next to it. Then since ex hypothesi the movent while causing motion is also itself in motion, and the motion of the moved and the motion of the movent must proceed simultaneously (for the movent is causing motion and the moved is being moved simultaneously) it is evident that the respective motions of A, B, G, and each of the other moved movents are simultaneous.
You also have, at your disposal, the original Latin of the phrase you quoted:
Omne ergo quod movetur, oportet ab alio moveri. Si ergo id a quo movetur, moveatur, oportet et ipsum ab alio moveri et illud ab alio. Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum, quia sic non esset aliquod primum movens; et per consequens nec aliquod aliud movens, quia moventia secunda non movent nisi per hoc quod sunt mota a primo movente, sicut baculus non movet nisi per hoc quod est motus a manu. Ergo necesse est devenire ad aliquod primum movens, quod a nullo movetur,
HERE is a site that will help you cojugate the Latin verb "moveo", the verb under discussion.
@Cal,
I find it interesting that that this:
bmiller: "Do you want to discuss with me how an argument that has no verbs implying past action somehow implies past action?"
Nope.
Came after this:
Apologists don't explore thoughts and test them against reality; they repeat slogans, and wait for group approval.
So, just to recap:
1. Not a single substantive, meaningful reply to the criticisms offered of the First Way (not sound, equivocation, begging the question, and contradictory) despite all these handwaving comments from the apologists,
2. a vow to define the First Way point by point as a defense that has apparently been abandoned,
3. and most recently an apologist who seems to think that because grammar manages tenses therefore one can discuss motion without reference to a prior reference frame.
What a long-winded casserole of nonsense the apologists have offered in their "defense."
I think our work is done here, Stardusty. Thanks for all your comments -- they are all truly a pleasure to read.
@Cal,
当你学会说英语时回来
Cal Metzger said...
" I think our work is done here, "
--What, so soon?-)
I'm just gettin warmed up!
I have been considering some of your psychological hypotheses. I ordinarily think internet psychoanalysis is pretty questionable but I have to admit your theories do fit the data amazingly well.
Any thoughts on receiving a barrage of attributions of troll. laced with copious expletives and ad hominems? The folks here mentioned Feser several times so I went over there to post a few things and half the posters just went apeshit. Of course, none of my attackers could put together cohesive arguments, but apparently I am most certainly a lying, ignorant stupid shithead troll troll troll. How Christian of them to inform me of such!
June 13, 2017 2:18 PM
@Strawdusty,
当你学会说英语时回来
Stardusty: "Any thoughts on receiving a barrage of attributions of troll. laced with copious expletives and ad hominems? The folks here mentioned Feser several times so I went over there to post a few things and half the posters just went apeshit. Of course, none of my attackers could put together cohesive arguments, but apparently I am most certainly a lying, ignorant stupid shithead troll troll troll. How Christian of them to inform me of such!"
I think that we are wired for human interaction in a face-to-face setting, and that environments like internet forums present an imbalanced environment; that's why so many times you hear that people are different in face-to-face interactions than they come across in email, comments, print, etc. So, among other things, I think that internet conversations are interesting not just for the opportunity to discuss ideas, but they may also be instructive by revealing cognitive forces that are more difficult to recognize (repressed?) in the more complex setting of face-to-face interaction.
I'm interested in ideas, and it occurs to me that one can't think about ideas absent the process of how it is we think. That's one reason I justify my participation in online forums like this -- as I mentioned it seems that apologists are pathological thinkers, and pathology is basically at the heart of neurological science; we know how the brain works mostly because we see what happens when some part of it is damaged.
So, your visit to Feser's blog is like going to the critical ward of online neurological study -- you are standing amongst the mother lode of pathological thinking, amplified by the imbalance found in online (not face-to-face) communication, and drawing from those who are pre-disposed to preserve group cohesion by reviling those identified as outsiders.
You must have felt so lucky. Like Dawkins discovering the Galapagos. :)
For what it's worth, I did decide to abandon my exercise, as it was clear the point of said exercise - getting a skeptic to understand the argument and then offer up relevant, meaningful criticisms based on the actual argument - was not going to ever be met, as neither skeptic had even a basic grasp of the argument based on the laughable criticisms I easily fielded. So after that much time and effort, only to wind up farther behind than when the thread started in January, I just laughed and gave up. Interpret that as a victory for yourselves, I guess. You outlasted my endurance.
Stardusty, can you link your conversation on Feser's blog?
Stardusty,
I'm assuming you are referencing the discussion about the problem of evil. Indeed you did get some unhinged responses, primarily from one poster, but you did enter the conversation with "You poor brainwashed guilt ridden self hating Christians." That's not an opener for a civil conversation, something skeptics all over don't seem to understand.
@Legion,
Interpret that as a victory for yourselves, I guess. You outlasted my endurance.
Yes, it's really been quite funny.
Call your opponents names, refuse to engage with them, and then declare victory.
I particularly enjoyed hearing them argue that:
1) They understand Aquinas's argument better than Aquinas and all commentators in history.
2) there is no such thing as potential
3) inanimate things move themselves
4) nothing moves things
5) present tense verbs imply past action.
I would list "frames", "end is the present" etc, also but we never got to hear how this was supposed to work since the proponent went into hiding.
bmiller: "I particularly enjoyed hearing them argue that:
1) They understand Aquinas's argument better than Aquinas and all commentators in history."
False. We understand the argument well enough (as have so many other commentators throughout history, with the most living in the present day) to see its flaws.
bmiller: "2) there is no such thing as potential"
False. We have pointed out that the term is muddled, and deficient when describing motion.
bmiller: "3) inanimate things move themselves"
False. (Exactly the opposite of what we have said, actually.)
bmiller: "4) nothing moves things"
False. (This one is also bizarre.)
bmiller: "5) present tense verbs imply past action."
LOL. Nothing can better demonstrate your stupidity than your inability to grasp what we wrote about motion requiring at least two reference frames, and that one of them is necessarily prior (past).
bmiller: "I would list "frames", "end is the present" etc, also but we never got to hear how this was supposed to work since the proponent went into hiding."
As I said, I have stopped responding to your requests for me to pay attention to you because I have recognized that you are stupid and insincere. As evicence, I give you your last comment (and all priors).
Legion: "For what it's worth, I did decide to abandon my exercise, as it was clear the point of said exercise - getting a skeptic to understand the argument and then offer up relevant, meaningful criticisms based on the actual argument - was not going to ever be met, as neither skeptic had even a basic grasp of the argument based on the laughable criticisms I easily fielded."
Nope. You appear to be trying to re-frame what you said you were trying to do, and pretend that you could have achieved that objective. But you have actually failed to do what you said you would do. You said you would do this:
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."
You have not followed through on your original proposal, and I think we can surmise why.
Cal: "Nope. You appear to be trying to re-frame what you said you were trying to do, and pretend that you could have achieved that objective."
Oh really? For example:
Me on May 8: “The only way for someone who agrees with an idea to find out if the idea is in fact bad, is to hold it up to criticism. If it withstands the criticism, there is no need to abandon the idea, but if a deficiency is demonstrated, then the idea should be modified or discarded. So the whole point of this was to go with you, line by line, and show you each premise one at a time, so that we could build upon each previous premise and thus you could see what Aquinas was actually saying. And that would be your opportunity to demonstrate the flaws.”
But we don't need to stay that recent. How about when I first proposed it to you, back on March 28?
Me on March 28: “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.”
Oh look, the post history again proves me correct.
But you are correct, I never had a prayer of setting out what I was trying to do - which, as the post history proves, was to get the skeptics to understand the argument, based upon what Aristotle and Aquinas were actually arguing for, and then refute it without fallacies. I was extremely overconfident in my ability to achieve that goal.
Perhaps someone elsewhere who has demonstrated the ability and integrity to actually understand another's position without ridiculously unjustified arrogance clouding his judgment, has taken the argument and refuted it. I'll look around.
Legion: "Oh look, the post history again proves me correct. "
No, it doesn't.
Legion: "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."
You stopped proceeding line by line, which is what you said you would do. I asked you to proceed on numerous occasions, and not to get hung up on the problems I pointed out in your definitions.
You stopped, which is your prerogative. But you can't say you did what you said you would do (go through the argument, line by line)-- saying as much is false, and saying false things is something I am compelled to point out.
You are confusing the method with the goal. The goal (getting the skeptics to grasp the argument and then refute it) was only possible (so I thought) if I used the method of going line by line.
There was no point in proceeding to later lines if earlier lines were not understood, said lack of understanding being made evident in the objections getting thrown out. Can't build the roof before the foundation, and can't understand later premises if the premises they build upon aren't understood.
See you next time.
@Cal,
LOL. Nothing can better demonstrate your stupidity than your inability to grasp what we wrote about motion requiring at least two reference frames, and that one of them is necessarily prior (past).
bmiller: "I would list "frames", "end is the present" etc, also but we never got to hear how this was supposed to work since the proponent went into hiding."
As I said, I have stopped responding to your requests for me to pay attention to you because I have recognized that you are stupid and insincere. As evicence, I give you your last comment (and all priors).
Small children throw out insults and then hide. Adults with integrity defend their claims.
I think it is wise that you have recanted your previous positions. I doubt your partner has.
Legion: "There was no point in proceeding to later lines if earlier lines were not understood, said lack of understanding being made evident in the objections getting thrown out."
By understood you seem to mean, "agree with me that there is no problem." This would be a dishonest way to analyze an argument in order that that it could be fairly criticized according to the rules of good argument, so I find this this objection to be specious.
Legion: "Can't build the roof before the foundation, and can't understand later premises if the premises they build upon aren't understood."
By these rules you seem to insist that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. But you are not -- the standards for what make a good argument are objectively known -- they are soundness, consistency, validity, and avoidance of known fallacies. To insist that you alone can determine whether or not criticism is valid by your determination of someone else's understanding (something that you cannot know) of the thing being criticized is a failing to fairly scrutinize an argument. It is an attempt to supplant the rules of good argument for your sole determination -- a determination that is simply unknowable.
This is consistent with a kind of narcissism. It's the best explanation -- along with the other factors I've mentioned in passing -- for your inability to process the valid criticism you've been offered so many times now.
bmiller: "Small children throw out insults and then hide. Adults with integrity defend their claims."
And then there are immature adults who act like children. Sic. (Of course, you act so young you may still be a teenage. Still, I don't recall being so loathsome as a teen.)
bmiller: "I think it is wise that you have recanted your previous positions. I doubt your partner has."
Correcting your lies is not recanting. And you are just a little liar.
@Cal,
bmiller: "Small children throw out insults and then hide. Adults with integrity defend their claims."
And then there are immature adults who act like children. Sic. (Of course, you act so young you may still be a teenage. Still, I don't recall being so loathsome as a teen.)
Yes, that's how I thought you'd respond. No defense, just more insults and hiding. I guess you've self-identified.
Correcting your lies is not recanting. And you are just a little liar.
Nonsense. Those are the accurately stated positions argued for by your side in this thread. I didn't see you disagree with any of them at the time.
When I consider the 1600+ comments in total, I conclude that the First Way is neither invalid nor unsound. Thanks Legion for trying.
When I consider the 1600+ comments in total, I conclude that the First Way is neither invalid nor unsound. Thanks Legion for trying.
Yes Legion, I agree with SteveK. Thanks.
I think we've all got a better understanding of the First Way after the discussion including the atheists (although it was with wailing an gnashing of teeth).
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" you did enter the conversation with "You poor brainwashed guilt ridden self hating Christians." That's not an opener for a civil conversation,"
--It was intended to be both an expression of sympathy and a wake up call for people deeply victimized by a brainwashing cult.
I was struck by the self hating, self flagellating, guilt ridden nature of their self blaming reaction to their cult indoctrination.
It was like speaking with escapees from North Korea who still worshiped the dear leader.
"something skeptics all over don't seem to understand."
--We understand cult induced self hatred vastly beyond those victimized by it.
What they, and apparently you, do not realize is how much sincere empathy I have for people like those poor saps who expressed such self loathing, still deep in their cult of self hatred.
Not surprisingly, telling a brainwashing victim "you are a brainwashing victim" is likely to be met with vociferous insult from the brainwashed victim.
June 14, 2017 10:51 AM
Stevek: "When I consider the 1600+ comments in total, I conclude that the First Way is neither invalid nor unsound. Thanks Legion for trying."
There's been no meaningful rebuttal here of the criticisms offered of the First Way -- muddled language, equivocation, unsound, contradictory, and begging the question. The only person who tried to systematically address these problems gave up about halfway through -- which makes sense, because the self-assigned task was an impossible one, something that careful and systematic analysis reveals.
Your unjustified conclusion does not make the described problems in the First Way resolve. It makes it clear that you are not actually interested in argument per se, but are motivated by reasons outside those used to analyze arguments.
Legion of Logic said...
" You are confusing the method with the goal. The goal (getting the skeptics to grasp the argument and then refute it)"
--You have failed to account for the case that you do not grasp the argument.
You seem to think that your interpretation of the argument is the only possible correct interpretation. That would be a rather narrow view of the subject, to say the least.
"if I used the method of going line by line."
--Which quickly exposed many weaknesses in the First Way. You seemed genuinely surprised that you received so much objection just in the very few opening lines, that you seemed to think were so self evidently reasonable, valid, unambiguous, and true.
Well, they aren't.
If you think they are then has it occurred to you that your perspectives are not as broad as they could be?
The very concept of motion as change is dubious. One may well question that the change of position is a sort of change for an object at all. Place a simple solid object stationary on your desk. Is it changing? Well, not apparently or obviously, yet it is in fact moving over 60,000mph in orbit with the sun.
Even the very first few lines raise issues of the very fundamentals of causality, what it means for anything to change, and whether there is or is not evidence that things do in fact change without an external cause.
These things are not so very obvious as has been long considered by simple naked eye observations.
" There was no point in proceeding to later lines if earlier lines were not understood,"
--Actually, there is. It is you who apparently did not or perhaps still do not understand the highly questionable fundamental assumptions built into even the very first few lines.
But, in discussions often one stipulates that the other party is recognized to mean this or that by specified terms without granting that those meanings are valid, but in acknowledgement that the other party has attached those meanings to those words.
The phrase is typically something like "ok, let's just say for the sake of argument that X means Y, I don't agree, but supposing X does mean Y, what do you think you can further demonstrate in that case?"
" said lack of understanding being made evident in the objections getting thrown out."
--Sorry, Legion, I think the opposite is the case. We skeptics are just that, skeptical, in the tradition of Des Cartes who doubted his way back to cogito ergo sum as the only absolute truth he could identify.
You should not be surprised or daunted when skeptics doubt the fundamental validity of the seemingly incontrovertible first few lines of the First Way.
" Can't build the roof before the foundation"
--This analogy is not apt.
The assumptions about the nature of reality implicit in the opening lines of the First Way are dubious. One need not accept their truth value in order to analyze further statements.
" and can't understand later premises if the premises they build upon aren't understood."
--That simply is not the case. Certain later fallacies occur in the First Way irrespective of the dubious views of motion and change introduced early.
For example Aquinas clearly begs the question
~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
It doesn't matter what you call act, or whether motion is change, in order to analyze those further statements for begging the question.
June 14, 2017 3:29 PM
@Cal,
>> "There's been no meaningful rebuttal here of the criticisms offered of the First Way"
I obviously disagree.
>> "Your unjustified conclusion does not make the described problems in the First Way resolve"
My conclusion is justified by your inability to convince me that the argument is invalid or unsound. If you were to do that I would change my mind.
stevek: "My conclusion is justified by your inability to convince me that the argument is invalid or unsound. If you were to do that I would change my mind."
Your being convinced that a bad argument is a good one is not what determines whether or not an argument is good or bad (that is just another fallacy). You should all get over yourselves about a fallacy being the standard for good arguments.
A good argument is determined to be good if it conforms to the principles of good argument. That is the only standard -- not your pronouncement that you remain convinced or unconvinced. The only service provided by your pronouncement is that it makes it easy to determine whether or not you can recognize faults in bad arguments (evidently, you cannot).
@Cal,
>> "A good argument is determined to be good if it conforms to the principles of good argument"
I agree with this. When skeptics present one that adheres to these principles, I will become convinced and change my mind. A lot of things have been said in these 1600+ comments and I don't see that argument anywhere.
Oh good lord.
Cal: "By these rules you seem to insist that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. But you are not -- the standards for what make a good argument are objectively known -- they are soundness, consistency, validity, and avoidance of known fallacies."
And by these standards, you defeat yourself. A strawman is a fallacy, and the vast bulk of what you offered as objections were strawman arguments. That's why the line-by-line approach utterly failed, you couldn't stay on subject worth a crap. There was no point continuing when even the most basic premises were too complex for you to grasp.
Cal: "To insist that you alone can determine whether or not criticism is valid by your determination of someone else's understanding (something that you cannot know)"
Between the two of us, I alone bothered to read the writings of Aquinas, Aristotle, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years. Between the two of us, I alone have an interpretation of the argument that is consistent with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years. So yes, between the two of us, I alone have any justification for claiming to understand the argument. You don't have a single justification for claiming the opposite. Your crippling narcissism is on display here.
Stardusty: "You have failed to account for the case that you do not grasp the argument."
You have failed to offer a valid reason for me to suspect I do not, as my understanding of the argument is in full accordance with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T philosophers.
Stardusty: "You seem to think that your interpretation of the argument is the only possible correct interpretation."
You seem to be afflicted with the same narcissism that Cal is buried under, in which you believe you understand Aristotle and Aquinas better than Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T philosophers who have studied their writings for years. Needless to say, there is not a single reason to suspect this is the case. The arrogant little quips about theists/apologists somehow being handicapped for not being atheists are no doubt incoming, but I'm up for some laughs if you're prepared to provide them.
Stardusty: "But, in discussions often one stipulates that the other party is recognized to mean this or that by specified terms without granting that those meanings are valid, but in acknowledgement that the other party has attached those meanings to those words."
I went by the definitions provided by Aristotle and Aquinas themselves. Your definitions did not match theirs, whereas mine did. I have not been provided with a reason to assume that Stardusty Psyche knows more about what Aristotle was saying than Aristotle did, not to mention Aquinas and A-T scholars.
Stardusty: "You should not be surprised or daunted when skeptics doubt the fundamental validity of the seemingly incontrovertible first few lines of the First Way."
It's obvious you don't realize what it was about the doubts that actually surprised me - it wasn't the lack of instant agreement, but rather the irrelevant tangents, the denials of things like water freezing into ice (it does), Cal telling me what I meant even when I quote exactly what I said that contradicts him, things of that nature. I found those to be astounding, and ultimately not worth any further effort.
Stardusty: "The assumptions about the nature of reality implicit in the opening lines of the First Way are dubious. One need not accept their truth value in order to analyze further statements."
We disagree whether meaningful objections were raised on the early premises, but one has to understand the early premises in order to analyze further ones, even if you disagree with them.
Stardusty: "That simply is not the case. Certain later fallacies occur in the First Way irrespective of the dubious views of motion and change introduced early.
For example Aquinas clearly begs the question"
Not addressing this is my only regret in abandoning this discussion, but I don't think it can be addressed unless the earlier premises are understood (not agreed with, just understood), which I have no reason to believe they are.
Seems silly to say this after approaching 2000 posts, but my interest in the First Way is strictly based on curiosity, meaning that I wouldn't care if the First Way was shown to be a garbage argument. Unfortunately, no objections have been raised that I find to be damaging to its premises or conclusion (including the accusation of question-begging, which is an accusation that A-T scholars have addressed, believe it or not). I know you and Cal disagree with that assessment, but the agreement of skeptics is not how I judge the worth of an argument.
Going line by line, I think (1) is clearly true
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal
A: All men are physical beings so this is a physics argument. The term "moral" seems like gibberish woo.
B: It's not a physics argument. Aren't all men mortal? Seems obvious to me.
A: Define 'mortal'
B: Mortal in this case is the potential to die
A: The potential to die is not an actual physical property. It's something that is physically possible but it doesn't exist right now
B: This isn't a physics argument. Water has the potential to freeze and men have the potential to die. Am I wrong?
A: Well, at the quantum level.....blah...blah...quarks....randomness....blah...blah
That example mimics how well this discussion went. LOL
SteveK
1) Even if we accept ancient and outdated concepts of mortality, which were based on macro level observations in which it appeared that something noteworthy occurred during a posited transition between archaic notions of life and death - notions that have been rendered obsolete by modern quantum physics (we know that no matter or energy "dies") - we do not know that all men meet this definition of mortal. No scientific study has demonstrated that all men are mortal. No matter your definition of mortal, the argument fails.
2.) There is no evidence Socrates existed. Research the Socratic problem.
3.) See above.
Your arguments are ad hoc and beg the question. About what we would expect from an apologist.
@SteveK
The only thing I know for certain is that I exist.
As long as I can remember, I've never been dead.
Thus mortality must be an illusion.
I demonstrate thusly: Watch as I walk across the interstate traffic at rush hour and without 💥 💥 💥 💥 ....................
>> "No scientific study has demonstrated that all men are mortal"
B: And yet it's true, is it not?
A: On a macro-level it seems that way but at the micro-level nothing is mortal or immortal. Our macro-level perception is an illusion. Humans are actually neither mortal or immortal *and* they are actually mostly empty space - like concrete!
B: wtf, huh?
A: Our macro-level perception of men being mortal or solid is an illusion. The truth lies at the micro-level.
B: This isn't a physics argument
A: Now that I've destroyed the first line of the argument, the rest of it can be ignored. Case closed.
B: *facepalm*
stevek: "I agree with this. When skeptics present one that adheres to these principles, I will become convinced and change my mind. A lot of things have been said in these 1600+ comments and I don't see that argument anywhere."
Round and round the apologists go; "I am not convinced," says the apologist, "therefore my argument stands."
But the standard isn't your being convinced or not (if you're an idiot, which you seem to be, your being convinced by an argument would incline me to presume it's a bad argument). The standard is the principles of good argument.
Narcissism + stupidity + biased thinking. = apologetics!
Me: "By these rules you seem to insist that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a good argument. But you are not -- the standards for what make a good argument are objectively known -- they are soundness, consistency, validity, and avoidance of known fallacies."
Legion: “And by these standards, you defeat yourself. A strawman is a fallacy, and the vast bulk of what you offered as objections were strawman arguments.”
You have yet to name one; all you do is repeat your silly assertion that you have perceived the unknowable — the unknowable being a) that I don’t really, truly understand the First Way, and b) that you actually do. You are oblivious to the obvious problems in your approach, and this makes you seem like such a lightweight.
Legion: “That's why the line-by-line approach utterly failed, you couldn't stay on subject worth a crap.”
Ha. This from the man who gave up halfway through a simple task explaining a topic on which he claimed to have such command.
You appear to confuse pointing out how an argument violates the principles of good argument with somehow not being able to “stay on subject worth a crap.” What a crock.
Legion: “There was no point continuing when even the most basic premises were too complex for you to grasp.”
I suppose you think that nodding one’s head at muddled thinking, like I imagine your daughter did for her dad, is what you think constitutes apprehension? (So that’s how Santa Claus gets down the chimney?) But that’s not apprehension — it’s aggressive gullibility, a genuinely dangerous tendency with a sordid past.
Me: "To insist that you alone can determine whether or not criticism is valid by your determination of someone else's understanding (something that you cannot know)"
Legion: “Between the two of us, I alone bothered to read the writings of Aquinas, Aristotle, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years.”
This is false.
Legion: “Between the two of us, I alone have an interpretation of the argument that is consistent with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the A-T scholars who have studied their writings for years.”
mkay. So, you loves the fallacies. I get it.
Legion: “So yes, between the two of us, I alone have any justification for claiming to understand the argument.”
You list a bunch of fallacies, still. But fallacies are not the standard for understanding an argument — they are known traps for bad arguments. And that simple fact is why you fail to see the problems in the First Way — you don’t actually abide by what makes something a good or bad argument. It’s really that simple, and also that difficult for you to fix (I can’t fix this for you — you have to be able and willing to do it yourself).
Legion: “You don't have a single justification for claiming the opposite. Your crippling narcissism is on display here.”
I get the feeling you don’t know what a narcissist actually is, except that you think it’s a bad thing to be compared to.
>> "The standard is the principles of good argument"
I agree. I'm saying that I don't see any evidence of this good argument coming from your side. It's not very complicated, Cal.
stevek: "I agree. I'm saying that I don't see any evidence of this good argument coming from your side. It's not very complicated, Cal."
Saying, "I don't see it," isn't a meaningful rebuttal. It's a repetition of the fact that you don't understand the rules of argument.
Stardusty links the problems with the First Way all the time. In order to refute the criticism, you'd have to actually show how it is that the First Way eludes the fallacies that Stardusty lists so often.
Pronouncing, "I'm not convinced" isn't a meaningful rebuttal, and can be safely ignored; it's a pronouncement that you're incapable of engaging with an argument, and are easily fooled.
But we already know this. Sic.
@Cal,
>> "It's a repetition of the fact that you don't understand the rules of argument"
Saying that I don't understand isn't a rebuttal. What you need for a rebuttal is a good argument.
>> "In order to refute the criticism, you'd have to actually show how it is that the First Way eludes the fallacies that Stardusty lists so often."
This has been done, hence my prior statement about your side lacking a good argument.
@Cal,
For example, Legion's rebuttal "this isn't a physics argument" covers a lot of ground when many of your criticisms attempted to force the argument into a mechanistic physics argument.
The obvious fact is, no, it's not that kind of argument. However, since you disagree, you need to show exactly, in painstaking detail, where the First Way is false according to physics. You didn't succeed in doing that by referencing Newton, micro-level physics or anything else related to physics.
I'd love to rehash 1600+ comment, but no not really. Pick your SINGLE BEST criticism and maybe we can look at it one more time.
So basically Cal got whipped by a lightweight. I'm okay with that, since I am indeed a novice at A-T philosophy and never claimed otherwise, beyond my ability to read the source and see what they believed.
Ah well. It is rare indeed that a skeptic provides meaningful dialogue, let alone highlights a bad argument.
@Legion,
I'm okay with that, since I am indeed a novice at A-T philosophy and never claimed otherwise, beyond my ability to read the source and see what they believed.
Well now we see the problem. It is unseemly for atheist heavy weights to actually read and comprehend arguments before loudly spouting their uninformed opinions. No wonder you are considered a light weight.
Apologists: "The reason you think the First Way is a bad argument is that you don't understand it!"
Skeptics: "No, we understand it -- and our criticisms show which failings of bad argument it employs. For instance, please address
Self contradiction, Begging the question, Ad hoc. Non Sequitur, False dichotomy, Further, the incomplete notation of the OP missing these terms: G, E )See these posts for more details and notation: March 12, 2017 9:25 AM, March 12, 2017 9:27 AM, March 12, 2017 9:28 AM, March 12, 2017 10:10 AM)
Apologists: "No, your careful parsing of the argument using the rules of good argument is peremptorilay unfair. First we should define the terms of the argument!"
Skeptics: "Great. Do it."
Apologists: "In the First Way, motion means change, and change means motion, except that change involves more than motion."
Skeptics: "Mkay. What else does change involve if not some kind of motion?"
Apologists: " "
Skeptics: "Hello?"
Apologists: "We give up. You clearly don't understand."
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "You have failed to account for the case that you do not grasp the argument."
" You have failed to offer a valid reason for me to suspect I do not, as my understanding of the argument is in full accordance with the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and A-T philosophers."
--Exactly why you do not understand it. Declaring your understanding of A-T is like saying you understand epicycles like a medieval astrologer understood Ptolemy.
Richard Feynman said "nobody understands quantum mechanics". This is coming from a Nobel prize winning physicist who had "Feynman diagrams" named after him.
Knowing the mechanics of an argument is not understanding it. One only understands an argument when its faults are understood.
You can study Newton and become an expert in how exactly he expressed his physics. You will not understand Newton until you understand that he was fundamentally wrong.
Stardusty: "You seem to think that your interpretation of the argument is the only possible correct interpretation."
" You seem to be afflicted with the same narcissism that Cal is buried under, in which you believe you understand Aristotle and Aquinas better than Aristotle,"
--Most certainly I do, because I understand how wrong some of their core concepts are and where they used fallacious reasoning and where their arguments are ambiguous or fanciful.
" Aquinas, and A-T philosophers who have studied their writings for years. Needless to say, there is not a single reason to suspect this is the case."
--I have mentioned the reason in the past:
I stand on the shoulders of giants (Newton).
" The arrogant little quips about theists/apologists somehow being handicapped for not being atheists"
--Imagine trudging through the bush in some place far from civilization. You spread the thick underbrush to come upon a huge campfire with dark skinned people in body paint, adorned with exotic dress, dancing, chanting, throwing sparks in the air, exhorting their gods for a good hunt, health, and fertility.
When I open the doors of a church and listen to the service with its music and chants and murmurs and lectures and songs that is how I see the congregation, as you would view the campfire rituals of hunter gatherers.
Stardusty: "But, in discussions often one stipulates that the other party is recognized to mean this or that by specified terms without granting that those meanings are valid, but in acknowledgement that the other party has attached those meanings to those words."
" I went by the definitions provided by Aristotle and Aquinas themselves."
--Hence your profound lack of understanding, copying the misunderstandings of ancient men.
Stardusty: "You should not be surprised or daunted when skeptics doubt the fundamental validity of the seemingly incontrovertible first few lines of the First Way."
" the denials of things like water freezing into ice (it does),"
--Does water have the "property" of freezing into ice? What exactly does that mean and how is that notion transferable or useful in reasoning a way to the origin of motion?
Certainly we observe at our level that liquid water becomes solid at low temperatures. But what do each of those terms mean?
Certainly
Observe
Liquid
Solid
Temperature
" Cal telling me what I meant even when I quote exactly what I said that contradicts him, things of that nature."
--Ok, I don't know which discussion you mean by that. I am not aware that I have been self contradictory toward you or in denial of specific things that were said.
I did misread one statement of yours, so thank you for correcting me on that. I was rather disappointed in myself for that error, but that is why science is an iterative process in which peer review is a critical element.
June 15, 2017 9:28 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "That simply is not the case. Certain later fallacies occur in the First Way irrespective of the dubious views of motion and change introduced early.
For example Aquinas clearly begs the question"
" Not addressing this is my only regret in abandoning this discussion, but I don't think it can be addressed unless the earlier premises are understood (not agreed with, just understood),"
--It really is not that complicated.
We have only 2 choices I have ever heard proposed. If you know of another proposed choice, please tell me because I would really like to know.
1. An infinite regress of motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "I".
2. A first motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "U".
Since there are just 2 choices then:
~I = U
~U = I
The great unsolved problem is that both U and I are irrational. That is why the problem has not been solved.
The great error of Aquinas is attempting to pick one of these irrational options. Of course, simply stating ~I would be too obvious, so like all those who attempt this fool's errand he wraps the argument up in many words, most of which seem reasonable, but there is always a key fallacy someplace in every such argument.
The question is not whether there is a fallacy, rather, just where the fallacy is.
Aquinas uses the "because" form of "therefore".
Y because of X
X therefore Y
Aquinas states
" But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover"
Here he asserts ~I because ~U cannot be because XYZ.
So
~I because ~~U
~I because U
U therefore ~I
Then he goes on to say:
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other;"
What necessitates U? The word "therefore" refers back to ~I, since only ~I can necessitate U.
~I therefore U
It all boils down to
U therefore ~I.
~I therefore U.
Haines acknowledges the outline structure of this question begging.
C2) ¬ I (premise 4)
CC) U (premise 5)
But Haines does not address in notation his own (4)a, or the word "therefore" in (5), probably because that would make the question begging obvious.
Beyond the question begging Haines is incomplete in his notation failing to incorporate a symbol for a human understanding of god.
Aquinas is incomplete (and thus Haines would have to be incomplete) in moving from a human understanding of god to the existence of god outside of human thought.
So, both Haines, and much more importantly, Aquinas, fail to close the deal.
Besides all its other defects, in the end, the First Way is a case of all dressed up and nowhere to go.
June 15, 2017 9:28 AM
@Cal,
The lack of a good argument isn't a rebuttal to the FW. Saying "please address our criticisms" isn't sufficient to rebut an argument. You have to SHOW that your criticism succeeds in actually rebutting the FW.
stevek: "The lack of a good argument isn't a rebuttal to the FW. Saying "please address our criticisms" isn't sufficient to rebut an argument. You have to SHOW that your criticism succeeds in actually rebutting the FW."
????????
Yes or no -- Is an argument that equivocates, contradicts itself, begs the question, is ad hoc, employs a non Sequitur, offers a false dichotomy -- is that argument somehow still a good argument?
You're just repeating your claim. Where's your good argument that shows these claims are true about the FW?
@Stevek -- Yes or no -- Is an argument that equivocates, contradicts itself, begs the question, is ad hoc, employs a non Sequitur, offers a false dichotomy -- is that argument somehow still a good argument?
This isn't in reference to an particular argument. It's a question regarding arguments in general.
Yes, or no?
Legion: "Cal telling me what I meant even when I quote exactly what I said that contradicts him, things of that nature."
Hmm. I think you mean that I quoted you contradicting yourself.
If so, guilty.
The answer is "no"
Cal: "Hmm. I think you mean that I quoted you contradicting yourself."
Never happened. I decisively proved you wrong every single time this occurred. This is why I believe you have no reading comprehension, as the only explanations I can come up with for how you can possibly get what I say so incomprehensibly incorrect is either being extremely delusional, intentionally deceitful, or simply unable to really process what you read. In the interest of fairness, I settled on the latter.
Perhaps you should stop depending so much on baseless assertion, and start making actual arguments.
>> "Perhaps you should stop depending so much on baseless assertion, and start making actual arguments"
This is what it boils down to.
I think we can all agree that we should examine the rebuttal arguments with the same rigor that we examined the FW argument - and judge the rebuttal by the same standard. We have heard a lot of talk and a lot of claims but there have been no good arguments (clearly defined terms, sound, consistent, valid, avoids fallacies)
@Strawdusty,
Legion:"" Not addressing this is my only regret in abandoning this discussion, but I don't think it can be addressed unless the earlier premises are understood (not agreed with, just understood),"
Strawdusty:
"1. An infinite regress of motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "I".
2. A first motion/change/causality. Typically denoted as "U".
Since there are just 2 choices then:
~I = U
~U = I
The great unsolved problem is that both U and I are irrational. That is why the problem has not been solved."
Legion is correct. Aristotle and Aquinas are talking about a series of instrumental moving movers in the present tense with "the first mover" being required for this type of series. You have defined "the first mover" differently. As long as you continue to do that, you are not making a case against the First Way.
bmiller said...
". Aristotle and Aquinas are talking about a series of instrumental moving movers in the present tense with "the first mover" being required for this type of series. "
--Easily the stupidest argument for a first mover I have ever encountered.
Aquinas bases his argument on motion that is apparent to the senses. It is apparent to our senses that objects move each other in a time sequence of events. There is no apparent mystery as to how or what caused the motion of a minute ago, since it was quite apparently the motions of objects from two minutes ago, and on and on into the past, as remembered, and as recorded, and conceivably back to an infinite past.
It is this infinite regress of past motions Aquinas is arguing against. You are an idiot, or a liar, or both.
June 16, 2017 1:47 PM
equivocates, contradicts itself, begs the question, is ad hoc, employs a non Sequitur, offers a false dichotomy -- is that argument somehow still a good argument?
Blogger SteveK said...
The answer is "no"
June 16, 2017 12:05 PM
Ok, there is apparent merit to the line by line approach.
Do you agree that this line as a modern argument for god, not as a summation regarding the first mover, but in the aspect of a modern argument for god is demonstrably a false and ad hoc assertion in that I am part of modern "everyone" and I do not understand "this" "to be God"?
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God"
Stardusty: "It is this infinite regress of past motions Aquinas is arguing against. You are an idiot, or a liar, or both."
Unfortunately, he is right and you are wrong. It is well established that Aquinas differentiates between an essentially ordered series (what bmiller is talking about) and an accidentally ordered series (what you are talking about). It is also well known that Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. So, you're simply wrong that Aquinas was trying to logically argue something he did not believe could be logically argued.
This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument.
Cal: "Hmm. I think you mean that I quoted you contradicting yourself."
Legion: “Never happened.”
False. To insist otherwise is to live in a fantasyworld.
You have contradicted yourself, and I have quoted you doing so. I’ll remind you.
Legion: “Either explain how there being types of change that involve no physical movement is a premise of the First Way, or admit that you are engaging in the First Strawman.”
So, at one point you argue that skeptics don’t understand the First Way because the First Way DOES NOT include the premise that there is change without any physical movement.
Then (wait for it), you say,
Legion: “Since the First Way covers every category of change that they had in mind - only one of which being physical movement - we know that they weren't just making a physics argument.”
And then you also said that in order to understand the first way one should assume that THERE IS another kind of change that does not include physical movement.
These two positions are contradictory. These are two quotes from you. You contradicted yourself above. And I have quoted you doing so in the past.
So, when you say, “Never happened,” what you mean is, “Yes, that did happen.”
If you can’t accept facts about reality (what you said, what I did), then you have no hope of ever being able to evaluate an argument. (This can explain things, I think.)
My guess is you are probably not so much a liar as deluded. And the plus side, with delusion there is always more hope than lying — it’s easier to fix understanding than it is to fix character.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "It is this infinite regress of past motions Aquinas is arguing against. You are an idiot, or a liar, or both."
" Unfortunately, he is right and you are wrong."
--How absurd.
" It is well established that Aquinas differentiates between an essentially ordered series (what bmiller is talking about) and an accidentally ordered series (what you are talking about)."
--That turns out to be a false distinction, but that is another issue, one of the false notions of A-T analysis of causality.
" It is also well known that Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning."
--Irrelevant. You are conflating the origin of existence with the origin of motion.
God was imagined to have always existed as an unchanging changer, the unmoved and unmoving mover. God was imagined to have properties different than the properties of material existence.
Aquinas reasoned that we observe things move, and that one thing moves another thing, like a flame moves wood, or a hand moves a staff. Clearly, these observations are not instantaneous. A second mover occurs later in time than a first mover in what is "evident to our senses".
"If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again....Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover,"
To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past.
" So, you're simply wrong that Aquinas was trying to logically argue something he did not believe could be logically argued."
--The absurdity of this line of argumentation is almost beyond description.
" This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument."
--How idiotic. Aquinas was not arguing that the first mover acted in this present instant.
June 17, 2017 7:09 AM
Legion: "Unfortunately, he is right and you are wrong. It is well established that Aquinas differentiates between an essentially ordered series (what bmiller is talking about) and an accidentally ordered series (what you are talking about). It is also well known that Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. So, you're simply wrong that Aquinas was trying to logically argue something he did not believe could be logically argued."
Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding.
By the rules of good argument, an argument with an unsound premise fails to be a good argument. So, you'll need to ditch that (incredibly silly) position of your hope is still to somehow show that the First Way does not fail to meet the requirements of a good argument.
Legion: "This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument."
When do you suppose it will occur to you that the criticism offered by skeptics is the understanding of the argument -- what it says, and why it fails to meet the requirements of a good argument?
Do you allow that that's a real possibility? Are you 100% sure that the First Way is a good argument? If not 100%, what percent of confidence do you have?
@Cal,
Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding.
Have you ever heard of the words "instantaneous" and "simultaneous"?
bmiller said...
" Have you ever heard of the words "instantaneous""
--Zero motion occurs in zero time.
The idea that the first mover acted instantaneously in the present moment is stunningly idiotic.
June 17, 2017 10:41 AM
Stardusty: "How absurd."
Unsupported assertions are the easiest to ignore.
Stardusty: "That turns out to be a false distinction"
I welcome your explanation, since if it is a good explanation then that could indeed make the argument pointless.
Stardusty: "You are conflating the origin of existence with the origin of motion"
You do realize that you're the one doing this, correct? I'm the one saying it's NOT about temporal origins.
Stardusty: "Clearly, these observations are not instantaneous. A second mover occurs later in time than a first mover in what is "evident to our senses".
The effect does not have to occur at the exact same time as the cause for an essentially ordered series. What makes something essentially ordered is whether or not the effect ends if the cause is removed. Examples:
Tip over the first domino in a row and the rest begin to topple. You are the cause of the dominoes falling, but if you walk away from them they will continue to fall. Not essentially ordered.
Hold a yo yo in the air. The string is holding up the yo yo, but it is only able to do so because you are holding the string - it does not have this causal power in of itself. If you let go of the string, the rest of the series will fail. This is essentially ordered, in which the secondary steps of the causal series derive their causal power from something more primary - the hand holding the staff pushing the rock.
Stardusty: "To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past."
Only relevant if the past cause is required for the effect to continue after it is caused. If this "first mover" could disappear and its effects continue without pause, like dominoes or human generations, then it is not the first mover of the argument.
Stardusty: "The absurdity of this line of argumentation is almost beyond description."
Baseless assertion.
Cal: "Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding."
That doesn't make Aquinas wrong, since Aquinas was fully aware of motion and causal series that were not essentially ordered. The argument is only about essentially ordered causal series, which basically means that if the cause is removed, the effect cannot be sustained. Your parents are your cause, but since you don't need your parents to continue existing, that is not essentially ordered. Your heart beating is definitely an essentially ordered cause with your existence as the effect. Cause vanishes, effect vanishes - essentially ordered.
Cal: "By the rules of good argument, an argument with an unsound premise fails to be a good argument. So, you'll need to ditch that (incredibly silly) position of your hope is still to somehow show that the First Way does not fail to meet the requirements of a good argument."
List the unsound premise, and explain why that premise is unsound.
Cal: "Are you 100% sure that the First Way is a good argument?"
Nope.
Cal: "When do you suppose it will occur to you that the criticism offered by skeptics is the understanding of the argument -- what it says, and why it fails to meet the requirements of a good argument?"
Namely because it has been proven that you guys still haven't grasped what Aquinas was saying. But yes, if you can point out an unsound premise, then I suppose it wouldn't matter if you had a clue what the argument was or not.
Also, a skeptic disagreeing with me does not make me suspect I may be wrong. I'm aware of the typical skeptic's feelings of intellectual prowess and inerrant reasoning abilities, but sadly I have yet to be impressed with such grandiose claims.
Also, though I doubt you care, I'm going to throw this out anyway. When I first got started in online debates about thirteen or fourteen years ago, I was very much to the loony end of the political right, getting my news from such illustrious places as World Net Daily and Infowars. I was a young-earth creationist, and I knew all about things like baraminology, flood geology, various cosmological models that didn't require an old universe, etc. I was a "King James Bible is without error" guy. All of these beliefs were very important to me on an emotional level, as well as intellectually compelling based on my one-sided knowledge.
When I ran up against people online who criticized such beliefs, and read sources different from my usual echo chamber, I considered what they said. Now I'm a centrist, have no trouble with evolution or an old universe or any other finding of science, and don't believe the King James is a perfect book by any means.
My point being, I can offer examples of where I abandoned even very important emotional beliefs when I was presented with good argumentation that those beliefs could not be sustained. The First Way is nothing more than a curiosity that I find to be a neat argument, an argument that I haven't even been aware of for a year and have been perfectly fine without. If I am not being swayed by your words, it isn't due to some sort of desperation or refusal to consider the possibility that the First Way is a crap argument - it is either because you are making very bad objections or it is because I am missing the point of what you're saying. Either way, you'll need a new approach if you actually want me to not agree with the First Way.
@Strawdusty,
Strawdusty:
" This is one of the reasons I've said all along the skeptics have yet to even begin to grasp the argument."
--How idiotic. Aquinas was not arguing that the first mover acted in this present instant.
All verbs in the argument are present tense and none imply past action.
You've chosen "to arrive" to support your case, but "to arrive" is an infinitive and the way it is used in the sentence it is the object.
Here is the sentence:
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
The basic form of the sentence is this:
it is "to arrive"
it is the subject
is is the verb
"to arrive" is the object
Therefore is a conjunctive adverb joining the previous ideas in the argument.
necessary is an adjective modifying the subject "it"
"at a first mover" is a prepositional phrase modifying the object "to arrive"
There is no indication of past action, only present tense verbs. Please consult a grammar textbook.
@Cal
In the first quote from Legion he references the *premises* of the FW argument. In the second quote Legion references the FW argument as a whole. It appears he was not referencing the same thing with each statement. A contradiction requires that you refer to the same thing in the same way.
@Strawdusty,
" Have you ever heard of the words "instantaneous""
--Zero motion occurs in zero time.
The idea that the first mover acted instantaneously in the present moment is stunningly idiotic.
The series of instrumental movers being in motion that Aquinas is referring to in the First Way is a simultaneous movement. When you say "the first mover acted" you've already missed the point.
The big rebuttal argument is an argument from grammar?? Seriously.
SteveK said...
" The big rebuttal argument is an argument from grammar?? Seriously."
--Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present.
The stupidity required to even suggest this is stunning indeed. That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant, but of course, the motion of my fingers keying "first mover in the present" is in the past relative to the motion of my fingers to key again "first mover in the present".
June 17, 2017 12:47 PM
@Strawdusty,
--Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present.
What a concept! Where could it have come from?
Aquinas is summarizing Aristotle regarding the Unmoved Mover in the First Way, so let's look HERE at the section from Physics where the particular type of series of movers being moved is discussed:
Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us take the case in which a thing is in locomotion and is moved by something that is itself in motion, and that again is moved by something else that is in motion, and that by something else, and so on continually: then the series cannot go on to infinity, but there must be some first movent. For let us suppose that this is not so and take the series to be infinite. Let A then be moved by B, B by G, G by D, and so on, each member of the series being moved by that which comes next to it. Then since ex hypothesi the movent while causing motion is also itself in motion, and the motion of the moved and the motion of the movent must proceed simultaneously (for the movent is causing motion and the moved is being moved simultaneously) it is evident that the respective motions of A, B, G, and each of the other moved movents are simultaneous.
June 11, 2017 11:34 AM Delete
That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant,
Nonsense.
>. "Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present."
Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time, imparting causal force acting upon it by the engine.
Clearly you are still lost, and we're almost 1700 comment into this.
Me: "Aquinas was wrong. There is no coherent way in which motion can be described without a reference frame (time and position), and all descriptions of motion thus include a prior time. Without a prior time, there is no motion. There is no description of motion without this basic understanding."
Legion: “That doesn't make Aquinas wrong, since Aquinas was fully aware of motion and causal series that were not essentially ordered. The argument is only about essentially ordered causal series, which basically means that if the cause is removed, the effect cannot be sustained. Your parents are your cause, but since you don't need your parents to continue existing, that is not essentially ordered. Your heart beating is definitely an essentially ordered cause with your existence as the effect. Cause vanishes, effect vanishes - essentially ordered.”
While there are problems with the notions you describe above, none of what you write above changes the fact that motion entails a prior (past) reference frame.
In other words, if the First Way is dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame, then the First Way fails because it is based on an unsound premise — one that is basically, fundamentally, incoherent.
Motion cannot be described without reference to a prior (past) reference frame. End of story.
The the premise that includes motion without reference to a prior (past) reference frame is incoherent, and incoherent premises are unsound. It is like an argument based on the premise that consistency isn’t consistent, or that existence doesn’t exist, or that ordered sequences are not arrangeable in a hierarchy. Things fall apart, and the center cannot hold.
The First Way at least gestures toward a great and existential riddle; you seem to be defending it as a kind of new age woo, which actually belittles what the argument tries to address.
The First Way is better than that (although it is flawed, in the ways we’ve described).
SteveK said...
>. "Apparently our resident theists have some idiotic notion of a first mover imparting the first motion instantaneously in the present."
" Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time,"
--It doesn't. The motion of the caboose is delayed by the elasticity of the system.
Try to think more accurately. It will help you to find the errors in ancient arguments.
June 17, 2017 1:46 PM
bmiller said...
" it is evident that the respective motions of A, B, G, and each of the other moved movents are simultaneous."
--That is false.
June 11, 2017 11:34 AM Delete
SP That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant,
" Nonsense."
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
If all cause and effect happens simultaneously and instantaneously then are are no past motions.
If you would learn something about causality instead or repeating the errors of ancient men you would learn that cause and effect are mutual processes over time.
To argue for an instantaneous and simultaneous first mover is to argue not for a first mover and a second mover, rather, a sole mover that always moves everything in the present.
I did not realize the depths of the conceptual ignorance of the theists here until these last dozen or so posts.
June 17, 2017 1:44 PM
Legion
"Your heart beating is definitely an essentially ordered cause with your existence as the effect. Cause vanishes, effect vanishes - essentially ordered.”
--That takes time. A person does not die immediately in this "essentially ordered" series. It isn't simultaneous.
Try to think more accurately, it will help you to identify the errors in the notions of ancient men.
@Cal,
In other words, if the First Way is dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame, then the First Way fails because it is based on an unsound premise — one that is basically, fundamentally, incoherent.
The First Way refers to things moving in the present, the now. It does not "dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame". It is simply not discussing a past sequence of events. To discuss things in the present is not to deny that things happened in the past, it simply means that past events are not part of the discussion.
Now you may consider this an unreasonable thing to do (discuss motion in the present) but that is what the First Way does. Congratulations for now engaging the First Way on it's own terms.
bmiller: "The First Way refers to things moving in the present, the now. It does not "dependent on motion not having a prior (past) reference frame". It is simply not discussing a past sequence of events. To discuss things in the present is not to deny that things happened in the past, it simply means that past events are not part of the discussion."
Which is why that understanding of the First Way is unsound. That "understanding" exempts the First Way from consideration. By the rules of good argument.
You are apparently so stupid that you don't realize that you are arguing for WHY the First Way is not a good argument. You are apparently so stupid that you think that repeating that the First Way relies on an unsound premise is somehow a defense of the argument. I have no words for this persistent stupidity.
bmiller: "Now you may consider this an unreasonable thing to do (discuss motion in the present) but that is what the First Way does. Congratulations for now engaging the First Way on it's own terms."
Congratulations for presenting an argument which is, per the rules of good argument, dead on arrival.
@Strawdusty,
SP That would mean that no motion precedes the motion in this present instant,
" Nonsense."
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
If all cause and effect happens simultaneously and instantaneously then are are no past motions.
No, you have it backwards. If nothing is happening at this moment, or the next moment or the next etc, then there is no movement happening at any moment and therefore no movement at all.
To argue for an instantaneous and simultaneous first mover is to argue not for a first mover and a second mover, rather, a sole mover that always moves everything in the present.
You're getting closer, but not quite. You're almost describing Occasionalism.
Stardusty: "I did not realize the depths of the conceptual ignorance of the theists here until these last dozen or so posts."
Yeah, I was starting to wonder about you for awhile. :)
@Cal,
I'm curious. What was it that allowed you to come to the conclusion that the discussion is about the present?
Legion: “Namely because it has been proven that you guys still haven't grasped what Aquinas was saying.”
Or, in non-bizzaro world, we do understand the argument, and we see its flaws.
You seem to think that every argument is a good one, and that it’s only a matter of understanding why they are good.
But many arguments are bad, and it’s important to develop the skills to recognize this. Do you disagree?
Legion: “But yes, if you can point out an unsound premise, then I suppose it wouldn't matter if you had a clue what the argument was or not.”
There is no secret, privileged “argument.” There is only the argument, which stands objectively on its own, in a way that can be analyzed by the rules of good argument.
We have pointed out the recent unsound premise (per the apologists announcement that cause and effect are instantaneous, and not separated by both time and space) — that if the First Way does not allow that motion requires a prior reference frame, then it CANNOT describe motion. Period. (Btw, this is a truly terrible place to plant your flag wrt to the argument — the argument has its flaws, but the one the apologists here have chosen is not among them — although were it to be an actual premise of the argument it does cause the argument to fail, because it is entirely unsound.)
Legion: “Also, a skeptic disagreeing with me does not make me suspect I may be wrong. I'm aware of the typical skeptic's feelings of intellectual prowess and inerrant reasoning abilities, but sadly I have yet to be impressed with such grandiose claims.”
It seems that you mistake skeptics’ criticism of apologists obviously flawed thinking with a commensurate pronouncement of perfect reasoning on behalf of the skeptic. But think of it more like skeptics having a vantage that the apologist doesn’t see — similar to an observer seeing a swimmer stranded in the ocean. The observer can see where land is, but the swimmer cannot. But that doesn’t mean that the observer sees everything — merely that the observer sees something that the swimmer cannot.
Legion: “Also, though I doubt you care, I'm going to throw this out anyway. When I first got started in online debates about thirteen or fourteen years ago, I was very much to the loony end of the political right, getting my news from such illustrious places as World Net Daily and Infowars. I was a young-earth creationist, and I knew all about things like baraminology, flood geology, various cosmological models that didn't require an old universe, etc. I was a "King James Bible is without error" guy. All of these beliefs were very important to me on an emotional level, as well as intellectually compelling based on my one-sided knowledge. / When I ran up against people online who criticized such beliefs, and read sources different from my usual echo chamber, I considered what they said. Now I'm a centrist, have no trouble with evolution or an old universe or any other finding of science, and don't believe the King James is a perfect book by any means.”
That’s a great story, and it gives me hope for you and all of us. There are times when I am frustrated by the inability of others to change their mind no matter what evidence and arguments are provided, and your account of evidence and arguments changing yours gives me heart.
Legion: “My point being, I can offer examples of where I abandoned even very important emotional beliefs when I was presented with good argumentation that those beliefs could not be sustained. The First Way is nothing more than a curiosity that I find to be a neat argument, an argument that I haven't even been aware of for a year and have been perfectly fine without. If I am not being swayed by your words, it isn't due to some sort of desperation or refusal to consider the possibility that the First Way is a crap argument - it is either because you are making very bad objections or it is because I am missing the point of what you're saying. Either way, you'll need a new approach if you actually want me to not agree with the First Way.”
All I can do is persist with what I see to be true.
@Cal,
I'm curious. What was it that allowed you to come to the conclusion that the discussion is about the present?
What I mean to ask is this:
The First Way is about the present and not a time sequential series. This is what all of us except you and Strawdusty have been saying. What was it that now, you see what it is that we've been claiming all along?
Legion
When I first got started in online debates about thirteen or fourteen years ago,... I was a young-earth creationist,
--I have debated many a YEC on line in years past. My kids thought I was wasting my time. They were wrong.
Congratulations. I warmly invite you to continue your journey.
Sam Harris sometimes bemoans the lack of real time acquiescence of those he has clearly bested in debate. I sent him a message telling him that is unrealistic. All of us change slowly, in small bits, rarely by epiphany, rather, the aggregate of many repetitions and rewordings and restatements.
>> "It doesn't. The motion of the caboose is delayed by the elasticity of the system."
Jeepers you are slow. I don't think I'll explain it to you since 1700 comments have passed and you haven't learned anything.
SteveK said...
>> "It doesn't. The motion of the caboose is delayed by the elasticity of the system."
" Jeepers you are slow. I don't think I'll explain it to you since 1700 comments have passed and you haven't learned anything."
--You claimed that a time sequence of events, a locomotive moving a caboose through a train, is "instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time"
You are demonstrably and measurably wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand how your error in the example relates to your other analytical errors. When you come to understand that relationship you will identify at least some of your other analytical errors.
June 17, 2017 6:32 PM
@Cal,
bmiller: "Now you may consider this an unreasonable thing to do (discuss motion in the present) but that is what the First Way does. Congratulations for now engaging the First Way on it's own terms."
Congratulations for presenting an argument which is, per the rules of good argument, dead on arrival.
@Strawdusty,
"To argue for an instantaneous and simultaneous first mover ..."
I did not realize the depths of the conceptual ignorance of the theists here until these last dozen or so posts.
It seems that both of you now have an understanding of the "motion" discussed in the First Way.
Strawdusty, I did not include your entire quote since I did not want to get into a dispute about the implications of that understanding for the purposes of this post.
Can you both now agree that under that understanding that " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move" is not relevant to the First Way since the First Way does not discuss motionless things beginning to move?
bmiller said...
" Can you both now agree that under that understanding that " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move" is not relevant to the First Way"
--No, of course not, reading skills.
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
" since the First Way does not discuss motionless things beginning to move?"
--Absurd.
"It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."
June 17, 2017 7:09 PM
>> "You are demonstrably and measurably wrong"
So you're saying that F=mA doesn't occur simultaneously? By that I mean the F generated by the engine doesn't result in the simultaneous A of the caboose?
Where are your measurements that demonstrate this?
@Strawdusty,
" Can you both now agree that under that understanding that " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move" is not relevant to the First Way"
--No, of course not, reading skills.
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
" since the First Way does not discuss motionless things beginning to move?"
--Absurd.
"It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."
"--No, of course not, reading skills."
Yes, I think this is the problem. Please diagram the sentences, get them graded by a qualified high school English teacher and get back with us when he gives you an "A".
stevek: "Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time, imparting causal force acting upon it by the engine."
And this is another critical problem when discussing with apologists; a fundamental, basic ignorance of how events actually occur when carefully studied. I blame the widespread adoption of homeschooling, but I can't rule out your garden-variety stupid as well.
"Instantaneous" is a term for human approximations of "at the same time." The notion is a useful one, but it breaks down on careful examination. An airbag seems, to us, to deploy instantaneously. But it does not -- the airbags deployment occurs over a sequence that occurs over time -- it can be recorded photographically in milliseconds. From collision to deployment a human would say the effect is instantaneous, but the event occurs over a time period that can be described in millions of parts. So, instantaneous is useful, but it is a fiction that breaks down on careful examination.
Basic physics explains this. In the early 1900's, Einstein and other physicists also made it clear that there is no clear time of "now" -- there is only an arbitrary selection of time and space against which the effects of other events are measured. Events are observer dependent.
In today's world, if you do not understand that the light from some distant stars was emitted billions of years ago, and is just arriving at our point of observation now, you are ignorant.
In today's world, if you do not understand that the force of a locomotive starts at the locomotive and then extends throughout its system of connected cars at a speed no faster than the speed of light (Stardusty would know the speed at which this force extends through the system), then you are ignorant.
So, try to educate yourself. You were born in a world built by giants, and for some reason you think your efforts are best spent denying that the view they built for us exists.
And without this understanding, you are simply unqualified to have the discussion you seem to want to have.
@Cal
>> "In today's world, if you do not understand that the force of a locomotive starts at the locomotive and then extends throughout its system of connected cars at a speed no faster than the speed of light"
This doesn't affect my point one iota. WHEN the caboose starts to move - whenever that occurs - the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion. Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained.
Conclusion: sustained motion/change of any kind is evidence that the FW is correct.
SteveK said...
>> "You are demonstrably and measurably wrong"
" So you're saying that F=mA doesn't occur simultaneously? "
--What is acceleration? It is a change in velocity over time. Yes, by taking the derivative of velocity one may calculate a concept called "instantaneous acceleration", but that is a mathematical concept.
Real system are elastic. You can get a better feel for this if you think of how a soft rubber ball compresses and deforms on impact, or how a long soft spring stretches when pulled.
Steel balls and steel mechanisms are also elastic like the rubber ball and the soft spring, but their elasticity is so low that we are sometimes fooled into thinking they are perfectly ridged.
"By that I mean the F generated by the engine doesn't result in the simultaneous A of the caboose?"
--No, certainly not, if for no other reason than light travels at about 1 foot per nanosecond, and that is a basic speed limit for all conventional physical actions of this sort.
" Where are your measurements that demonstrate this?"
--Let's just suppose the train is 1000m long and light travels at 300,000,000m/s. So 1000/300000000 = 3us (3 microseconds).
So, who cares about 3 microseconds? Your computer performs about 10,000 operations in that amount of time. Our big bang is thought to have passed through the Planck epoch, Grand unification epoch, Electroweak epoch, and Quark epoch to enter the
Hadron epoch in 3 microseconds.
An infinity of 3 microseconds would be an infinity of time just as surely as an infinity of years would be.
When considering the true nature of causality it is critically important to differentiate between precisely zero time and some finite amount of time.
Besides all that the train can be modeled as a mass/spring/damper system. I don't have the mechanical engineering model for that but if you doubt there is some finite delay time between a force applied at one end of a train and its propagation to the other end of the train then you just do not understand how mechanical systems work.
June 17, 2017 7:39 PM
stevek: "WHEN the caboose starts to move - whenever that occurs - the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion. Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained."
Wrong. The force from the engine was impelled earlier in the transaction, and the time at which the force that originated from the engine is transmitted to the caboose is AFTER (not simultaneously) the time at which the force originated.
You don't understand basic physics. And an argument that denies the reality of how events occur is unsound (and a bad argument).
It's that simple.
stevek: "Conclusion: sustained motion/change of any kind is evidence that the FW is correct."
If by simultaneous motion you mean that physical events like a locomotive pulling its cars occur instantly, and not sequentially (spread out over time), then you are demonstrably incorrect, and pathetically ignorant.
Which explains a ton, I can tell you.
Why did you never take a basic physics course? Was it never required?
@Cal
If you'd like to argue that ALL the sustained effects observed today are ALL the result of a cause that no longer exists in the present, then be my guest and make that argument. Yours would be a FW of a different kind - one that relies on a different type of causal series. It would be a metaphysical argument just the same. Proposing a metaphysical alternative to the FW of Aquinas doesn't defeat the argument.
SteveK said...
" the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion."
--That is not accurate, but it is basically true that the engine accelerated the train from a standstill and continues to apply enough force to overcome the rolling friction of the train, to a first approximation.
" Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained."
--That is the ancient Aristotelian idea, which turn out to be wrong because the motion of the train continues even if the engine goes into neutral. Even with friction the motion of the train is converted to molecular motion in the environment, and so continues, not in the train, but in other objects.
" Conclusion: sustained motion/change of any kind is evidence that the FW is correct."
--Since your "evidence" is erroneous it is no surprise your conclusion is also.
Motion is sustained, which only deepens the mystery and does indeed call for the question of the origin of motion.
The proximate cause for the origin of motion is our Big Bang. The expansion of the universe. But what caused our Big Bang? Ultimately, nobody knows.
June 18, 2017 9:09 AM
@Atheist Gentlemen,
Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics. It seems that you are unaware of this fact.
Here is a video explaining instantaneous velocity.
It helps if one understands calculus but at the 3:30 mark it shows the concept with some non-calculus examples.
Dusty
>> " The proximate cause for the origin of motion is our Big Bang"
You'll need a good argument for this claim. The Big Bang causes authors to write novels and skeptics to type on computers? Interesting theory. Consider me skeptical.
Me: "Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained."
Dusty: "That is the ancient Aristotelian idea, which turn out to be wrong because the motion of the train continues even if the engine goes into neutral."
You're not reacting to my point. My point is, remove the engine and the current motion - whatever it is - cannot be sustained. That current motion changes to be some other motion such as a decreasing velocity motion rather than a constant velocity motion. Aristotle knew this.
SteveK: "If you'd like to argue that ALL the sustained effects observed today are ALL the result of a cause that no longer exists in the present, then be my guest and make that argument."
Ha.
I don't need to make an "argument" for how motion occurs. Motion occurs in ways that are (or are not) accurately described.
Arguments that fail to account for how reality is described (how reality is) fail by the rules of good argument -- they rely on a premise that is unsound.
So, you don't understand how motion occurs (over a sequence of at least two reference frames), you don't understand basic physics, and you don't understand the difference between observations and arguments.
There's no reason for me to engage with you; you don't even pose good questions.
Stevek: "Yours would be a FW of a different kind - one that relies on a different type of causal series. It would be a metaphysical argument just the same. Proposing a metaphysical alternative to the FW of Aquinas doesn't defeat the argument."
I'm not making a metaphysical argument (whatever woo that would be). I'm not making any argument per se. I'm pointing out the various ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. Try and get your head around that very simple, very basic fact.
stevek: "You're not reacting to my point. My point is, remove the engine and the current motion - whatever it is - cannot be sustained. That current motion changes to be some other motion such as a decreasing velocity motion rather than a constant velocity motion. Aristotle knew this."
Aristotle was wrong about the physics of motion as you describe it above. This has been understood since the time of Newton.
Why did you never take a basic physics course? Was it never required?
Doesn't it bother you that you don't understand high school level material (basic, modern physics), and that your comment betray this (somewhat appalling) ignorance?
@Cal
>> "I'm pointing out the various ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. Try and get your head around that very simple, very basic fact."
We've been discussing many side issues. Where have you discredited a premise of the FW argument? Be very specific.
bmiller said...
@Atheist Gentlemen,
" Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics."
--Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?
Velocity is the first derivative of position, the second derivative is acceleration, and the third derivative is somewhat whimsically called jerk.
By that I mean position function and velocity function and acceleration function, say, of x.
The notion of an instantaneous value for these functions can be expressed by substituting a particular value of x into each of these functions to get a particular answer for that particular value of x. That is all very practical and allows engineers to do useful things.
The philosopher of math and science, however, will ask what it means to have an instantaneous value for something that is inherently meaningful only as a change over time.
If I move at a constant velocity between point A and point B, say, 10 meters apart and it takes me 10 seconds then I am moving at 1m/s. If I consider 3m in 3s that is still 1m/s. In each case I perform the division of m/s. But what happens when s goes to precisely 0? The expression is no longer valid, it becomes meaningless and will throw an error if you enter it into a calculator.
That's a conceptual problem.
June 18, 2017 10:43 AM
@Cal,
>> "Aristotle was wrong about the physics of motion as you describe it above."
Whether he was correct or not is immaterial to what actually occurs. If you disagree with my statement on sustained motion and engines, tell me exactly where I am wrong. That's all that matters.
My years of physics and calculus courses are also immaterial.
>> "So, you don't understand how motion occurs"
Sure I do. It occurs when an actual thing causes some other actual thing to go from a state of inherent potential to actual - ie when something causes a book to go from potentially on the table to actually on the table. If I'm wrong, tell me exactly where I am wrong otherwise shut your trap.
ME: "WHEN the caboose starts to move - whenever that occurs - the force of the engine is simultaneously, instantly, in the present time, causing the motion to be sustained motion. Take away the engine and the motion cannot be sustained."
Cal: "The force from the engine was impelled earlier in the transaction, and the time at which the force that originated from the engine is transmitted to the caboose is AFTER (not simultaneously) the time at which the force originated."
Read what I said. I said that the force from the engine is moving the caboose in the present moment - and that statement is 100% true. You are instead looking at when the force originated from the engine, but I wasn't doing that.
As anyone can see from my statement, I was looking at the instant when the motion occurred. At that instant in time, the force is applied concurrently with the motion of the caboose.
Reading comprehension, Cal. It's a beautiful thing.
stevek: "Whether he was correct or not is immaterial to what actually occurs."
What actually occurs is the issue. If an argument relies on a description of reality that is not built on what actually occurs, then the argument is built on an unsound premise. And unsound premises make an argument a bad argument. Do you disagree? Because I thought you agreed above that there are rules of argument, and that recognizing a violation is how one identifies bad arguments.
stevek: "If you disagree with my statement on sustained motion and engines, tell me exactly where I am wrong. That's all that matters."
I did. Read it again. I can't make you understand, but I can point out your mistake.
Spoiler: A locomotive doesn't pull its cars simultaneously. The force is transmitted at some rate equal to or less than the speed of light. Sooooo, if the train were long enough (say, a train that wrapped around the earth 1,000 times), then one could literally start the engine down the track, then brake the engine, and (if memory serves) watch the rows of cars across each circumference of the earth motion down the track in sequences of about 2.5 rows per second. So, your silly notion that cars stop moving when the locomotive stops moving is wrong. And that's because motion that we observe occurs over time (with at least two reference frames).
Aristotlean physics is roughly correct and intuitive. Newtonian physics is more correct and a little odd. Modern physics is more correct still, and kind of weird. To the extent the First Way relies on intuitive physics over the more precise description of what actually occurs, it is unsound. And unsound arguments are (by the rules you agreed to) bad arguments.
stevek: "My years of physics and calculus courses are also immaterial."
No, they're not. Your conceptual ignorance cries out for an explanation. My most charitable explanation is that you were never exposed to real physics course -- the kind that you need to understand well enough to pass (most high schools offer these). A less charitable explanation is that you are simply stupid. Neither is comfortable for you, but reality needs to be faced at some point, doesn't it?
Me: ""So, you don't understand how motion occurs."
Stevek: "Sure I do. It occurs when an actual thing causes some other actual thing to go from a state of inherent potential to actual - ie when something causes a book to go from potentially on the table to actually on the table."
Lol.
Stevek: "If I'm wrong, tell me exactly where I am wrong otherwise shut your trap."
Shut my trap?
I have told you where you're wrong. I can't fix your ignorance, and certainly not your stupidity. You have to do that on your own.
>>. "So, your silly notion that cars stop moving when the locomotive stops moving is wrong. "
Strawman. I said that the current motion changes to some other motion when the causal force is removed/changed. Observation proves that out. I'll quote myself to prove it.
Me: "My point is, remove the engine and the current motion - whatever it is - cannot be sustained. That current motion changes to be some other motion such as a decreasing velocity motion rather than a constant velocity motion."
>> "Lol. "
LOL right back at you. No argument, eh?
>> "I have told you where you're wrong."
Where? You've argued a strawman and you've replied with "Lol". If only it were that easy.
Cal Metzger said...
" Sooooo, if the train were long enough (say, a train that wrapped around the earth 1,000 times), "
--Damn you, I had just recently managed to forget this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tJSn0QtME
June 18, 2017 5:57 PM
SteveK said...
" We've been discussing many side issues. Where have you discredited a premise of the FW argument? Be very specific."
--Well, at the risk of jumping in on the conversation, here are some suggestions:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
As to your call for specificity, one false premise is introduced in the last sentence "this everyone understands to be God". It doesn't matter if his cloistered little audience had that understanding, as an argument purported to be valid today that is a blatantly false premise, since I am part of everyone, and I do not have that understanding.
June 18, 2017 4:08 PM
A train moving at a sustained 50 mph for 8 hours requires a constant 8 hours of force from the engine. This is true whether the train is 1 mile long or it wraps around the earth 1000 times. Remove the engine after only 2 hours and it will no longer be able to sustain 50 mph for 8 hours.
Thus proving that I am correct. Remove the engine, the motion changes.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "You are conflating the origin of existence with the origin of motion"
" You do realize that you're the one doing this, correct? I'm the one saying it's NOT about temporal origins."
--The origin of time does not in principle have to coincide with the origin of motion, if for example, somehow time passed but nothing moved.
Stardusty: "Clearly, these observations are not instantaneous. A second mover occurs later in time than a first mover in what is "evident to our senses".
" The effect does not have to occur at the exact same time as the cause for an essentially ordered series. "
--Right, then it isn't simultaneous and the first mover is in the past in that case.
What makes something essentially ordered is whether or not the effect ends if the cause is removed. Examples:
" Hold a yo yo in the air. The string is holding up the yo yo, but it is only able to do so because you are holding the string - it does not have this causal power in of itself. If you let go of the string, the rest of the series will fail. This is essentially ordered, "
--But what caused me? And what caused that? "But this cannot go on to infinity"
Thus Aquinas arrives at a first mover, necessarily in the past.
Stardusty: "To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past."
" Only relevant if the past cause is required for the effect to continue after it is caused. If this "first mover" could disappear and its effects continue without pause, like dominoes or human generations, then it is not the first mover of the argument."
--There are no such statements in the text.
June 17, 2017 11:40 AM
Stardusty: "Right, then it isn't simultaneous and the first mover is in the past in that case."
Not in the same sense as an accidentally ordered series. Remove the first mover in an essentially ordered series, and the entire series fails. That's why I've said that the cause must exist at the same time as the effect - which is different than saying the effect must occur at the same time as the cause.
Stardusty: "But what caused me? And what caused that? "But this cannot go on to infinity""
I believe this is likely a different question than what the First Way addresses.
Your parents caused you, their parents caused them, and so on. This is not an essentially ordered series, because your existence does not end if your ancestors die. You are the effect of the cause, and the effect persists after the cause is removed. That's not what the First Way is about.
I like the example of a chain better than a train, so I'm using it. A weight is being lifted into the air by a chain. The final chain link is what is lifting the weight, but in reality it's not - that chain link has no power in of itself to lift the weight. It's being lifted by the link in front of it. And that link's ability to lift is contingent upon the link in front of it, and so on, until you get to whatever is pulling the chain, let's say a hoist. The chain's ability to lift is granted to it by this "first mover" (I know it doesn't actually terminate there, just an illustration).
What would happen if the hoist was removed? The weight and chain would all hit the ground, because the chain's ability to lift the weight is entirely contingent upon the hoist acting upon it. Proposing an infinite number of links fails, because each link is granted its ability to lift by the next link - each is a secondary cause. Without a first mover to grant causal lifting power to the chain, the chain can't lift, even if it is infinite in length.
That is the difference between an essentially ordered series and a discussion of causes leading into the past. Time between the cause and effect is irrelevant to the essentially ordered series in the sense that the only relevant criteria is, will the effect be sustainable if the cause is removed? If the answer is no, it is an essentially ordered series. Unless you are discussing what it is keeping you alive, your causes and their causes aren't relevant to the First Way.
God acting in the past to create the universe is a different argument than God being required to sustain the universe, which is what the First Way argues.
Stardusty: "There are no such statements in the text."
There are such statements in other texts. Aquinas believed it theoretically possible for the universe to be of infinite age, which would negate the need for a first mover in the temporal sense. He also says the following: "In efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity per se (essentially ordered series) - thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are per se required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, and the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity."
What it boils down to is this: If there can be literally no time in between the cause and effect in an essentially ordered series, then the First Way fails.
If the qualifier for an essentially ordered series is whether or not the effect can be sustained without the cause, then the First Way does not fail on the objection about time.
@Strawdusty,
If I move at a constant velocity between point A and point B, say, 10 meters apart and it takes me 10 seconds then I am moving at 1m/s. If I consider 3m in 3s that is still 1m/s. In each case I perform the division of m/s. But what happens when s goes to precisely 0? The expression is no longer valid, it becomes meaningless and will throw an error if you enter it into a calculator.
That's a conceptual problem.
There is a reason that college level physics requires calculus as a pre-req. If you're using a calculator you're using the wrong tool. If you're using calculus you're using the right tool. It appears you did not watch the video. Why not?
" Instantaneous velocity is a well known concept in physics."
--Yes, it is a concept, but in what sense does a thing move in zero time?
Physicists and engineers routinely calculate instantaneous velocity. It appears that this comes as a surprise to you. If you cannot understand this, you can't fathom the motion discussed in First Way.
>> "Thus Aquinas arrives at a first mover, necessarily in the past."
No. You should differentiate between the first mover and the ensuing cause. The first mover must exist in the present since it cannot be changed by another. Immutability means it cannot cease to exist.
@Legion,
What it boils down to is this: If there can be literally no time in between the cause and effect in an essentially ordered series, then the First Way fails.
I disagree with your assessment. I'm not sure how you came to it, but although it is the instrumental part of the essentially ordered series that is doing the work, simultaneity is used to illustrate this.
As Ed Feser explains here.
So I disagree that simultaneity refutes the First Way. Quite the opposite.
Bmiller,
I was addressing the notion that on the train example, since there is a bit of time delay between the engine moving and each car moving (flex and play in the couplers, etc) that it somehow refutes the First Way. My point was that the effect doesn't literally have to happen at the precise microsecond as the cause, but the cause must always be present during the effect.
@Legion,
I was addressing the notion that on the train example, since there is a bit of time delay between the engine moving and each car moving (flex and play in the couplers, etc) that it somehow refutes the First Way.
OK. I think the train analogy got off track (heh) anyway. The point was merely that the caboose is being moved by the car ahead of it, and that being moved by the car ahead of it and so on until the engine is reached which terminates the series. All of the cars comprise a single mobile of moving movers that can never move unless there is an engine. If someone wants to miss that point they could in any number of ways.
@Strawdusty,
"To "arrive" is to get to something or someplace over time, in this case some time in the past."
Here is the sentence:
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
"to arrive" is an infinitive in this sentence, not a verb and so carries no tense past or otherwise. The verb tense in this sentence is the present as indicated by "is".
If you don't know what an infinitive is, click on the link.
@bmiller
Yeah, the train analogy got derailed. The skeptics misread my comments and the derailing occurred when they took off to argue against a strawman. Here's the comment that got it started I think...
Me: "Because that is the argument. The caboose moves because there is an instantaneous, in the present, right now, at the same time, imparting causal force acting upon it by the engine."
The skeptics interpreted this to mean that there was no time delay between the motion of the engine and the motion of the caboose, but my comment doesn't say that. My statement references the time when the CABOOSE moves, not when the engine moves. At that time, the causal force is present.
Cal was especially inept. He doubled down on his inept reading skills by calling me names and ridiculing my ability to understand physics. He cannot read English or take the time to ask questions. I guess skepticism does that. The irony is wonderful.
@SteveK,
Yeah, the train analogy got derailed.
OK, you win the pun contest today. ☺
But here is a bit of trivia. Known what they call the thing moving the train?
Take a look HERE.
Prime Mover, nice.
I thought the train analogy was helpful. I thought the skeptics would wake up and realize that a time delay between the Prime Mover acting and the object being moved doesn't affect the FW argument. The argument is independent of time. No matter how long or short the train is and no matter how much time passes (last car motion vs first car motion), ALL motion is caused by the Prime Mover.
Since the argument is independent of time, the universe can be old, young or it can be eternal and the answer is the same - ALL motion is caused by the Prime Mover.
Legion: "Not in the same sense as an accidentally ordered series. Remove the first mover in an essentially ordered series, and the entire series fails. That's why I've said that the cause must exist at the same time as the effect - which is different than saying the effect must occur at the same time as the cause. "
In what sense does a star that has ceased to exist still exist that caused the effect of its emissions being recorded today?
It seems that the only way that it exists is to say that its effect is being perceived now. But that is just a tautology -- what is perceived now is perceived now.
Stardusty: "But what caused me? And what caused that? "But this cannot go on to infinity""
Legion:I" believe this is likely a different question than what the First Way addresses."
Then the First Way fails to address the ramifications of the dilemma it introduces. Here's the problem:
1. It is impossible to talk about motion without introducing a prior reference frame. (Motion requires two reference frames, one of which is necessarily prior to the other. This is inescapable in any discussion of motion.)
2. It is therefore impossible to discuss a first mover without going back in time.
3. Any discussion of a first mover is necessarily about what has happened before (relating to time).
To be clear, if the First Way ignores the fact that motion necessarily refers to a sequence in which frames are distinguished by time, then the First Way is unsound. (Premises which contradict our observations or are not supported by observation are unsound.)
Thus, to insist that the First Way discusses motion but NOT MOTION REGARDING TIME is to declare that the First Way is unsound (or incoherent -- fine line, I suppose).
I'd guess that most of the previous dozen or so apologist comments (Stevek's little attempts are perhaps the most egregious, and in a contest that includes bmiller that is something) all suffer from the same problem of trying to gloss over this flagrant problem.
Motion requires time.
If the First Way discusses motion, and not time, then the First Way is unsound (or incoherent).
I can explain this in greater detail, but I suggest that apologists try to accept this because it's inescapable.
@Cal,
Motion requires time.
If the First Way discusses motion, and not time, then the First Way is unsound (or incoherent).
No problem. I'm sure no one disagrees. The First Way discusses both time and motion.
^^^
However, the motion discussed in the First Way is the particular motion of particular things that exist in the part of time called the "now". So material things that exist now that are moving are part of the discussion. If the material moving things cause other material moving things to move "now", then they could be part of an essentially ordered series which also is discussed.
Non-existent things of the past that are not moving are not part of the "now" and are therefore not part of the discussion. In a some sense they may be considered responsible for present movement when considered as temporally ordered, but that is not the sense the First Way considers. That type of series would be considered a accidentally ordered series which is the type of series we've been stressing is not under discussion in the First Way.
@Legion
@bmiller
This blog post from a Christian astrophysicist said something that appears to relate to the FW. I thought you might find it interesting. Basically, a huge amount of energy is being added to the universe to sustain a constant density. If you consider outside the universe as being without time then no motion is occurring (motion entails time). So what we have is an unmoved mover sustaining the universe.
https://sixdayscience.com/2017/01/23/god-the-expanding-universe-and-dark-energy/
@SteveK,
Basically, a huge amount of energy is being added to the universe to sustain a constant density.
Thanks for the article. She did a good job of explaining the background as to why the mysterious dark matter is postulated and the huge extent of it. Of course I'm sure our atheist friends would object to her speculations.
In return, HERE is an article that you may find interesting from a well-known physicist-mathematician-cosmologist.
bmiller: "No problem. I'm sure no one disagrees. The First Way discusses both time and motion."
Then you should communicate this to the other apologists:
Legion: "I'm the one saying [the First Way is] NOT about temporal origins."
Stevek: "I said that the force from the engine is moving the caboose in the present moment - and that statement is 100% true. You are instead looking at when the force originated from the engine, but I wasn't doing that."
----
The First Way necessarily involves time, and that is because the First Way tries to explain motion.
Trying to discuss motion in the present, without reference to the prior events which gave rise to the present event, is to present a first mover that cannot exist.
Not sure what all the fuss is regarding time. What is the complaint supposed to prove or disprove?
Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause.
I'm no physicist but isn't there sustained subatomic motion?
stevek: "Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause."
The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation. This is why your silly assertion that you do understand modern physics (all evidence to the contrary) is so obviously false -- why it is so obvious that you don't understand how objects move as described since Newton. The statement above, if incorporated into the First Way, makes the First Way unsound -- and, as you have agreed, an argument that violates the principles of good argument fails.
stevek: "I'm no physicist ..."
You don't say.
@Cal,
>> "The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation."
What controlled observation shows that there is NO cause acting to sustain a motion that never changes? I'm aware of Newton. What I'm not aware of is an observed absence of causation.
Stevek: "Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause."
Cal: "The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation."
How so?
Cal: "In what sense does a star that has ceased to exist still exist that caused the effect of its emissions being recorded today?"
That's an accidentally ordered series - once the light has left the star, the star can vanish but the existing light will still be detectable.
A star in an essentially ordered series would be more like human life on Earth being contingent upon the sun. Human life would end very quickly with the sun's extinguishing, unlike light that has already left it.
If an effect cannot be sustained without the cause coexisting with it and acting upon it, it is an essentially ordered series. These are what the First Way discusses, as opposed to effects that persist even if the cause is removed.
Stevek: "Sustained motion requires a present cause to sustain it, so that kind of motion would entail a present first mover acting to produce the necessary sustaining cause."
Cal: "The statement above is unsound -- it literally is violated by (controlled) observation."
Legion: "How so? "
Man-launched satellites in orbit around earth.
Only in apologetics land would I have to answer this question.
How do you observe an absence of causation in that situation, Cal? I suspect you're bluffing but I'll give you a chance.
A net force equal to zero does not mean there is a complete absence of causality acting on a body in motion. It just means all forces are equal and opposite.
Are there active forces sustaining the equilibrium to prevent the motion from changing - or is there a complete absence of active causes?
Is there an active cause working to sustain deep space so that objects put into motion continue with the same motion? I don't think Newton's theory addresses this question.
stevek: "How do you observe an absence of causation in that situation, Cal? I suspect you're bluffing but I'll give you a chance."
Scientifically.
I still find it amazing that in this day and age apologists here seem to think that:
1. Angels push things around
2. Aristotlean physics has not been supplanted by a more accurate (and less intuitive) description of physics
3. a scientific process for understanding reality (objectivity, reliability, verifiability, alongside Occam's razor and a few other abiding principles) can be safely ignored in favor of arm-chair ignorance.
In the wild, and here it is. Completely amazing.
stevek: "Is there an active cause working to sustain deep space so that objects put into motion continue with the same motion? I don't think Newton's theory addresses this question."
Please go on. Your findings are truly groundbreaking.
Bluffing by replying "scientifically" is still bluffing as far as I'm concerned. You said an absence of causation has been observed. Show us the observed absence.
You could be correct, but all I'm seeing is your posturing.
@Cal,
Your arguments aren't convincing because you wantonly avoid analyzing them with the same rigor that you demand the FW argument be subjected to. The FW could very well prove to be a failed argument. I agree with Legion that if it fails it won't bother me too much. I have no emotional stake in it. I've lived without it for most of my life.
If you want to show that it's wrong, you'll need a good argument. Hand waving isn't a good argument. "Scientifically" isn't a good argument. Ridicule isn't a good argument.
stevek: "Your arguments aren't convincing because you wantonly avoid analyzing them with the same rigor that you demand the FW argument be subjected to."
What arguments? I'm offering criticism, of the First Way, pointing out the ways in which the First Way violates the rules of good argument. Recently, I'm pointing out that if the First Way is about motion and yet the First Way is not about time, then the First Way fails to be sound -- motion is necessarily about time.
stevek: "The FW could very well prove to be a failed argument. I agree with Legion that if it fails it won't bother me too much. I have no emotional stake in it. I've lived without it for most of my life."
As has been pointed out, the FW fails on multiple levels. It's a critics' smorgasbord, really.
stevek: "If you want to show that it's wrong, you'll need a good argument."
Nope. All I need do is point to the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument. I thought you agreed to this already.
stevek: "Hand waving isn't a good argument."
I agree. So why are you handwaving instead of protesting without providing any meaningful response?
stevek: "Scientifically" isn't a good argument."
It's a good and appropriate response to a vapid and seemingly thoughtless question.
stevek: "Ridicule isn't a good argument."
Ridicule is an effective tool with apologists, because apologists are rarely (ever?) persuaded by argument. Otherwise, they would not be apologists.
Motion occurs over time so the FW is about time in that sense. Problem resolved.
stevek: "Motion occurs over time so the FW is about time in that sense. Problem resolved."
You should tell these two guys below, then. They've going on for some time about how they are the ones who understand the FW, and that it's not about prior events.
Legion: "I'm the one saying [the First Way is] NOT about temporal origins."
Stevek: "I said that the force from the engine is moving the caboose in the present moment - and that statement is 100% true. You are instead looking at when the force originated from the engine, but I wasn't doing that."
The FW deals with motion, which entails that it is about time as it relates to motion. The FW does not deal with the temporal origins of any specific motion so I'm not sure how the FW can be about temporal origins. I think a person can infer something about temporal origins from the FW argument, but that inference isn't part of the argument proper.
Temporal origins: not a good criticism
Time delay: not a good criticism
Newton: not a good criticism
Modern science: not a good criticism
bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism
Gentlemen,
I will not be able to post as often as I have been been since I am otherwise occupied.
I know Cal will miss that, but don't worry, I'll be back at full speed sooon. :-)
SteveK said...
Motion occurs over time so the FW is about time in that sense. Problem resolved.
June 20, 2017 12:56 PM
--Yes, that reasoning is rather clear, so it is indeed difficult to understand the apparent denials of it.
Even if one speculates that everything is continuously being pushed about by some sort of sustaining force god that god still must have acted in the past to sustain the motion that occurred in the past.
The examples in the first way are clearly of temporal events, such as fire being used to make wood that is not burning then burn. The notion that one lights wood on fire and the wood burns all instantaneously is absurd.
"whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other;"
Anyone who reads the examples provided, then reads that text, and comes away thinking all the fire and motion and subsequent motion and arriving at a mover all happens in zero time...well, that would be bizarre reading and thinking indeed.
SteveK said...
" Temporal origins: not a good criticism
Time delay: not a good criticism
Newton: not a good criticism
Modern science: not a good criticism
bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism"
--How about begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false dichotomy, false premise. non sequitur, and incomplete argument?
June 20, 2017 2:21 PM
stevek: "Temporal origins: not a good criticism"
If the First Way excludes a prior (past) reference frame then its notion of motion is unsound or incoherent. Arguments with unsound or incoherent premises fail (per your agreement).
steveK: "Time delay: not a good criticism"
If the First Way excludes the understanding that things in motion occur over time, and not at the same time, then its notion of motion is unsound or incoherent. Arguments with unsound or incoherent premises fail (per your agreement).
stevek: "Newton: not a good criticism"
If the First Way doesn't accept Newton's introduction of the idea that things in motion tend to stay in motion, an idea that is tested through observation (see my satellite reference above), then its notion of motion is unsound. Arguments with unsound or incoherent premises fail (per your agreement).
Modern science: not a good criticism
Failure to understand modern science, in particular physics, is the best explanation for your confusion. Modern science is not a criticism per se -- it's a shared tool that can be used to identify bad premises, however. You seem confused about the role of science in testing premises for soundness, as well as what constitutes a sound (verified by observation) premise. You seem like a highly confused person -- which seems to be the fallow ground upon which the silly First Way can take hold.
stevek: "bluffing, posturing and ridiculing: not a good criticism"
Don't confuse the fact that you don't seem to understand modern physics with my bluffing. Physics is reality, and reality doesn't bluff.
It's not posturing to point out the ways in which we think others are mistaken.
As pointed out upthread, ridicule actually is effective for beliefs that have been adopted based on social and psychological dynamics rather than a more dispassionate-based process.
@Cal
1) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time, but does not discuss when the motion originated. Resolved.
2) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time. Resolved.
3) The FW does not reject or conflict with Newton. Resolved.
4) The FW does not contradict modern science. Resolved.
Your continued posturing, bluffing and ridiculing doesn't affect me at all, other than it sometimes make me laugh.
@strawdusty,
Anyone who reads the examples provided, then reads that text, and comes away thinking all the fire and motion and subsequent motion and arriving at a mover all happens in zero time...well, that would be bizarre reading and thinking indeed.
The examples show that the motion of the moving movers is simulaneous with and essential to the motion of the entire series as it is happening now, from moment to moment. Perhaps if you point to the exact phrases in the argument where you find things happening in the ancient past we can resolve it. After all there is no dispute among experts on this point.
stevek: "1) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time, but does not discuss when the motion originated. Resolved."
If the First Way is to follow motion back to its source, it necessarily goes back in time. If the First Way is to arrive at a first mover, it necessarily must go back to a when. If the First Way is to go back to an origin (a first mover), it necessarily goes back to a when.
You simply don't understand the argument (and its ramifications) well enough to discuss it, let alone defend it.
Sad.
2) The FW discusses motion, which occurs over time. Resolved.
3) The FW does not reject or conflict with Newton. Resolved.
4) The FW does not contradict modern science. Resolved.
Cal: "If the First Way is to follow motion back to its source, it necessarily goes back in time."
Why would we have to travel back into the past to figure out why a caboose is moving?
>> "If the First Way is to follow motion back to its source, it necessarily goes back in time."
The FW discusses motion over time and its causal source, but beyond that the FW does not go back into the past to discuss a specific "when".
We can discuss the motion of a caboose over time and its engine without having to discuss when the engine left the station.
Legion of Logic said...
Cal: "If the First Way is to follow motion back to its source, it necessarily goes back in time."
" Why would we have to travel back into the past to figure out why a caboose is moving?"
--Because the caboose does not move at all in zero time.
To detect the motion of the caboose requires that one notes the position of the caboose in the past, and notes the position of the caboose in the present, and notes that those positions are different, therefore the caboose moved.
Further, if we wish to explore the motion of the caboose we must ask if the caboose has always been moving, and if not, then the caboose was at some time in the past stationary, then at a later time in the past the caboose was caused to move.
If the locomotive caused the first motion of the caboose then the locomotive is the first mover of the caboose and the locomotive necessarily first moved the caboose at some time in the past, else acceleration was infinite and motion of the caboose occurred in zero time with both of those notions being irrational.
This is like talking to a little kid.
June 21, 2017 7:09 PM
It definitely is like talking to a little kid, except when I talk to my little kid, she exhibits far greater understanding than the skeptics here. Extremely sad.
If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?
Legion: "Why would we have to travel back into the past to figure out why a caboose is moving?"
Literally time travel? No.
Understand that motion perceived with the present as a reference frame NECESSARILY requires a prior (back in time) reference frame, yes.
See Stardusty's response above for further explication.
I honestly think that Stevek et al. are too stupid to understand this simple ramification of the argument. You seem more capable, so your bafflement is harder to explain.
Prior (and prior, and prior, and on and on and on) is not only a necessary ramification of the existential dilemma that the First Way tries to answer (and fails to resolve, for the reasons enumerated), but it is also plainly in the original text that you have said you were willing to defend.
The expressed bafflement concerning this obvious and essential component of the argument, as if discovering this fact for the first time, makes it even more absurd that the apologists here would try to lay claim to an advanced understanding of the First Way. In fact, the apologists here seem to be struggling with even grasping the age-old dilemma that the First Way tried (and fails) to resolve.
Legion: "If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?"
This is just another way of saying that you don't understand the dilemma, or the argument.
The First Way is not about what will happen in the future. Give it that much. The First Way tries (and fails) to resolve the existential question of origins -- and origins involve real things that occupy space, and space involves time, and so the First Way is necessarily about GOING BACK in time.
I know that this fact will be easier for you understand if I were to present you with some face-saving way of accepting this fact without acknowledging your awkward ignorance, but I can't think of one. Or maybe your obstinacy (pride?) has just exhausted my charity.
But really, spend some time and think this stuff through. You can be better than this.
>> "The First Way tries (and fails) to resolve the existential question of origins"
Nope. It fails that because it doesn't try to discuss time beyond the concept of motion occurring over time. The FW argument applies to today and to billions of years ago. There's no specific "when" or where being discussed. There's no discussion of how long the train is. There's no specific discussion of when the engine left the station.
Over the years I've done many physics problems of bodies in motion where I had to answer many different questions about that situation. I don't recall my instructor requiring that we go back in time to resolve when the a cause originated.
stevek: "Over the years I've done many physics problems of bodies in motion where I had to answer many different questions about that situation. I don't recall my instructor requiring that we go back in time to resolve when the a cause originated"
LOL. You still want to keep on pretending that you took and passed a real physics class at the same time you write things that demonstrate you have no real grasp of physics.
Cal,
Will a caboose sustain its movement if it is decoupled from the engine?
>> "Will a caboose sustain its movement if it is decoupled from the engine?"
Unlike Cal, I've actually done the math to resolve that question :)
Legion: "Will a caboose sustain its movement if it is decoupled from the engine?"
An earth bound train operating under normal earth conditions is subject to friction, so, no-- an object that doesn't have a propelling force equal to the forces of friction will decelerate.
This fact addresses the issue of the origins of motion how?
Does a satellite launched outside the earth's atmosphere fall to earth once its launch system has expired?
I though you were going to try and defend the First Way. It seems more and more like apologists would rather talk about anything but.
Cue the, "What you really don't understand about the First Way is..." hand waving.
Try and show some focus. Follow up on what you said you would do. Otherwise, it just looks like you're unable to pursue a line of thinking that makes your prior vows and appraisals seem so subsequently silly.
You mentioned earlier how you have changed your mind about some things. While I think that is a good story, it's getting harder and harder to reconcile that story with your stubbornness and denial here.
Cal: "An earth bound train operating under normal earth conditions is subject to friction, so, no-- an object that doesn't have a propelling force equal to the forces of friction will decelerate."
Good. That's correct, a caboose will not continue moving unless its motion is sustained by something else.
Notice at no point in this analysis is one required to analyze when its motion began, but rather one must analyze what is driving that motion at the moment it is occurring. Know why that is? Because the First Way does not concern itself with when motion began - it concerns itself with why motion is sustained. Why is the rock moving? Because the staff is pushing it. Why is the staff moving? Because the hand is pushing it. And so on. That doesn't necessitate an inquiry into when someone picked the staff up to push the rock, it only requires that a staff be pushing a rock at the moment in question.
If a given motion literally required nothing else for its motion to be sustained, then it would not be covered by the First Way. If a motion is contingent upon something else in order to be sustained, then there must be a termination point in which something is driving the motion without itself being driven by something else, because a simultaneous infinity of secondary drivers would result in no motion. That's the First Way. There must be a first mover at the same time as the motion in question.
It's like this. A is in motion. Why is A in motion? Because B is moving it. But B is being moved by C, so B is a secondary mover. But C is contingent upon D, so C is a secondary mover, and so on. It doesn't matter how many secondary movers you throw into the mix, if there is no first mover that is not contingent upon something else, then there will be no motion at A. It doesn't matter when B began moving A. It doesn't matter if B has been moving A for eternity. If there is no first mover, secondary movers are powerless to move anything else, thus the first mover must be concurrent with A. What happened in the past is irrelevant to whether A can sustain its motion without the first mover.
stevek: "Unlike Cal, I've actually done the math to resolve that question :) "
Really? That's actually a fairly complex physics problem. Care to show your math on that one? Or were you just, you know, lying.
I wonder how your psyche will reconcile you realizing that you don't actually know about the problems you say you've resolved, and what you'll tell yourself as you desperately try to look them up now.
Pretend pretend pretend.
Sometimes I wonder what apologists think when they pretend? That it's okay to lie to others and oneself because....?
Mostly I imagine they just don't think. Explains a great deal, I can tell you.
Legion: "If a given motion literally required nothing else for its motion to be sustained, then it would not be covered by the First Way."
Then the First Way fails, as we've been saying, because it is unsound.
Light continues to travel through space long after the star that emitted it has died.
The man launched spaceship Voyager is leaving our solar system, and will continue to sustain its departure from us for billions of years.
The version of the First Way you are trying to defend fails to explain these observations, and is thus unsound. By the rules of argument.
@Cal,
>> "Light continues to travel through space long after the star that emitted it has died."
That reminds me, you were going to show us an observed absence of causation. I refuse to accept the logical fallacy that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Cal prefers the science stopper approach
Q: What causes light to remain in motion?
Cal: Nothing does so you can stop searching for something
stevek: "That reminds me, you were going to show us an observed absence of causation."
Quote me stating I would do that.
Or are you just a little liar?
stevek: "Unlike Cal, I've actually done the math to resolve that question :) "
Me: "Really? That's actually a fairly complex physics problem. Care to show your math on that one? Or were you just, you know, lying."
You going to follow up on my question? Or are you just a little liar?
I pretty much can't think of you ever saying something that is correct, or following up on demonstrating one of your silly claims.
apologetics = stevek
>> "Quote me stating I would do that"
To verify your claim you can either do that or accept the logical fallacy that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which do you prefer?
stevek: "To verify your claim you can either do that or accept the logical fallacy that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which do you prefer?"
Poor little lying stevek caught in another lie.
Poor little lying stevek can't quote me saying I would "going to show us an observed absence of causation," because, apparently, poor little lying stevek thinks that Occams razor (a principle of science) is a logical fallacy.
Poor little lying stevek.
@Cal,
You said that the FW was unsound because certain things have been observed. Now you're saying something about a principle of science, which is philosophy.
Is the FW unsound because of philosophy or observation? You need to spell it out.
@Cal
Legion: "If a given motion literally required nothing else for its motion to be sustained, then it would not be covered by the First Way."
Cal: "Then the First Way fails, as we've been saying, because it is unsound."
You'll need to explain how "not covered by" means the argument is unsound.
@Stevek, I have surmised that you are an idiot, who can contribute nothing to an intellectual discussion.
As evidence for this observation, I present your comments (see above, all).
Legion comes and goes, but you are consistently stupid.
I am sorry that I can't help you.
stevek: "Over the years I've done many physics problems of bodies in motion where I had to answer many different questions about that situation. I don't recall my instructor requiring that we go back in time to resolve when the a cause originated"
WTF?
Where did you take physics, Trump U? The university of matchbook covers?
That time is typically designated as t=0.
In other problems it is sometimes called "at some time t"
In the typical undergraduate physics of motion problem the cause is powder burning to fire a bullet, or a a ball colliding with another ball, or an arm that trows a ball.
All done in the past.
Legion of Logic said...
" It definitely is like talking to a little kid, except when I talk to my little kid, she exhibits far greater understanding than the skeptics here. Extremely sad.
If you remove the engine, will the caboose sustain its movement?"
--Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling.
If it were a rocket engine in space then yes, the spacecraft keeps moving.
It takes a special kind of superstition to suppose angels keep nudging everything along.
June 22, 2017 5:59 AM
Stardusty: "Yes, of course, the caboose keeps rolling."
We must live in different universes, because I have never seen a train moving without an engine. Of course, water freezes into ice in my universe, too. Perhaps you should visit, it's a fascinating place.
Post a Comment