"Swinburne uses the example of a rocket ship. As the statistics will bear out, the science behind launching projectiles and people into space always has a chance at being wrong." --This is "the" Christian philosopher? I am not surprised.
Earth to Swinburne, your god isn't like rocket ship. We have launched lots of rockets. Millions of people have seen them launch. We have lots of physical evidence about rocket ships and a lot of people have ridden in them. Rockets are well defined, mathematically modeled, and small versions can be purchased and launched by anybody.
There are no video tapes of god, math of god, or any physical trace of god. Your god is a figment of your imagination. You can't produce any physical evidence for your god because it doesn't exist. So you make up a lot of elaborate hide and go seek fantasies about the invisible man who is going to make you live forever in paradise but is nowhere to be seen here and now.
"I’m simply saying that we honestly consider the evidence. " --There isn't any beyond wishful fantasies and vague feelings.
Have you Christians ever asked yourselves why your invisible man is invisible if he is so real and central to all reality, while even the most mundane of realities is so starkly in your face and seen by all?
The rocket analogy is indeed awkward at best, but the point he is making is absolute certainty vs reasonable to accept as trustworthy. Probability that a belief is true, in other words.
That Christianity is more likely to be true than atheism is fairly obvious, as in so many years of seeing atheists' objections and attempts at rebuttal, all have been failures, with only a handful being worthy of deeper consideration. Such a consistent degree of bad arguments is quite significant indeed.
Now, it's possible that the problem is in the messengers and not the message. Perhaps atheism is more reasonable a position to hold than the messengers are able to articulate. So I would encourage them to keep at it, as they will either refine the arguments or will realize they don't hold water, as I have concluded.
Stardusty, your objections are painfully shallow and suggest a complete ignorance of our actual beliefs and their basis. I'd read less Sam Harris if I was you, and go find some actual thinkers to try out. Your sources are doing you no favors.
Have you Christians ever asked yourselves why your invisible man is invisible if he is so real and central to all reality, while even the most mundane of realities is so starkly in your face and seen by all?
Yes, we have.
The answer is simple. God is the Creator - not creation. Anything that you "see" in the universe will of necessity be part of that universe, and not the Maker of it. We cannot "see" God unless He shows Himself to us.
Now we can reason our way to God, as Saint Paul says ("Ever since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.") But note that even Paul notes that these things are "invisible", in the same way that a person's character traits are invisible, but can be inferred by observing his actions. In the same way, we can infer God's nature by observing His creation.
" The rocket analogy is indeed awkward at best, but the point he is making is absolute certainty vs reasonable to accept as trustworthy. Probability that a belief is true, in other words." --Probability based on what evidence? There is no physical evidence for god. Where? What?
" That Christianity is more likely to be true than atheism is fairly obvious, as in so many years of seeing atheists' objections and attempts at rebuttal, all have been failures," --Interesting. Nobody has been able to raise a single objection to July 28, 2017 5:12 PM https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12 beyond "You really are confused. Go read a book." In the face of careful rational analysis that is all a theist is capable of, apparently.
" with only a handful being worthy of deeper consideration." --There are no sound arguments for god, none whatsoever. There never have been. The ancient arguments are particularly bad, and the modern ones fall apart quickly as well.
" Such a consistent degree of bad arguments is quite significant indeed." --You're talking about the First Way, correct?
" Now, it's possible that the problem is in the messengers and not the message. Perhaps atheism is more reasonable a position to hold than the messengers are able to articulate." --The problem is on the receiving end. Most theists cling to their irrationalities and no amount of rational argument can appeal to a person who is thinking irrationally.
" So I would encourage them to keep at it, as they will either refine the arguments or will realize they don't hold water, as I have concluded." --No, you have not concluded that. You have made a lot of progress in your life away from some of the more absurd assertions of Christianity, so it is I who encourage you to continue your journey toward rationality.
" Stardusty, your objections are painfully shallow and suggest a complete ignorance of our actual beliefs and their basis." --Interesting, please point out how shallow the referenced analysis is for July 28, 2017 5:12 PM https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
" I'd read less Sam Harris if I was you," --Yes, I realize that.
" and go find some actual thinkers to try out. " --That would be me. I rejected Christianity and all theism when I became old enough to think for myself
"Your sources are doing you no favors." --What do you know of my sources?
" We cannot "see" God unless He shows Himself to us." --How convenient. The most powerful force in existence is invisible and in principle impossible to see unless it decides to remove its invisibility cloak.
" But note that even Paul notes that these things are "invisible"," --Of course. If one is going to peddle an invisible man story it won't do to pretend he is visible when he obviously is not. One must claim that all the things we see somehow indicate this invisible man is real, and one must concoct some poetic language to make this story sound exalted.
" in the same way that a person's character traits are invisible, but can be inferred by observing his actions. In the same way, we can infer God's nature by observing His creation." --But I can see a person.
On your sort of "evidence" for god one can simply make up any speculative set of imagined beings and say they created our world, then point to our world and say "see, it was those magic pixies I told you about, of course magic pixies are real, I told you magic pixies created the world, and just look at how real and wonderful our world is, so obviously magic pixies are real, and you can know all about the nature of magic pixies by observing the properties of the creation of magic pixies which is this wonderful world".
That would be me. I rejected Christianity and all theism when I became old enough to think for myself
your a thinker hu? a thinker who thinks this:
Earth to Swinburne, your god isn't like rocket ship. We have launched lots of rockets. Millions of people have seen them launch. We have lots of physical evidence about rocket ships and a lot of people have ridden in them. Rockets are well defined, mathematically modeled, and small versions can be purchased and launched by anybody.
There are no video tapes of god, math of god, or any physical trace of god. Your god is a figment of your imagination. You can't produce any physical evidence for your god because it doesn't exist. So you make up a lot of elaborate hide and go seek fantasies about the invisible man who is going to make you live forever in paradise but is nowhere to be seen here and now.
Ok thinker man how many videos are there of string membranes? dark matter? Neutrinos? such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level and thinks the deicing factor between what is credible and what is obscured is physical visibility. Even the ancient Greeks knew better,
" Ok thinker man how many videos are there of string membranes? " --Is that what your god is? A string? Is a string omnipresent?
Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
What is the mathematical model of god?
" such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level" --You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
All you've done is replace "the Almighty and Everlasting God, the Lord of Hosts" with the words "magic pixies". That's not an argument. It's not even reason. (Besides, I know of no Christian who talks like your strawman example. You sound like Donald Trump when he puts on that whiny voice of his in a lame attempt to imitate his critics.)
But reasoning with you is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. I can't count how many times it's been explained to you that the Creator is NOT part of His creation, so any attempt to find Him by observing the physical world is doomed to failure by definition. Yet you persist having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, and simply repeat, "I can't see Him!" as though that meant anything. (It doesn't.)
--You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
That was me, not Joe. And I knew perfectly well how to do so. I was just too unmotivated to go through the effort. And after you re-posted the material, I'm glad I didn't waste my time. It wouldn't have been worth it.
" All you've done is replace "the Almighty and Everlasting God, the Lord of Hosts" with the words "magic pixies". " --Nope, you replaced the true gods, the magic pixies, with your false "Lord of Hosts". That's not an argument.
" I can't count how many times it's been explained to you that the Creator is NOT part of His creation" --You mean "their" creation. It's lots of invisible magic pixies all working together, duh.
Mortal said... Quick to make accusations, aren't you? No lying involved. It does not have them. You obviously have no familiarity with Google Chrome Books. July 30, 2017 8:28 AM
Chromebooks have a control key, abbreviated ctrl. Why do you persist in your lies? This is so petty of you. https://www.howtogeek.com/189324/master-chrome-os-with-these-chromebook-keyboard-shortcuts/
Stardusty: "Probability based on what evidence? There is no physical evidence for god. Where? What?"
I can't find my grandpa anywhere in the painting he made.
Stardusty: "Interesting. Nobody has been able to raise a single objection to..."
My belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with the First Way, though I suppose you are correct that my language was broad enough to include individual arguments for God, even if they weren't mine.
Stardusty: "There are no sound arguments for god, none whatsoever. There never have been. The ancient arguments are particularly bad, and the modern ones fall apart quickly as well."
If this was true, I wouldn't believe in God. I have been given zero good reasons to believe atheism is even possible, let alone probable. They all amount to "just because" arguments.
Stardusty: "The problem is on the receiving end."
I don't have a single reason to suspect this.
Stardusty: "No, you have not concluded that."
Yes, I have concluded that.
Stardusty: "Interesting, please point out how shallow the referenced analysis is for..."
I'll eyeball it later this evening, going kayaking now.
I too do not base my belief in God on Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways (although I do acknowledge their unimpeachable reasoning). I base my faith on the trustworthiness of the Gospels and on the Apostolic Witness as faithfully passed on to today by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Despite 2000 years of trying, no one has yet to lay a glove on either of these.
Theology, philosophy, and apologetics are nice (they really are!), but in the end they are but icing on the cake. The cake is the Gospel.
And not only the cake, but the appetizer, main course, soup, salad, cocktails, after dinner drink, and floor show as well.
If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the Gospels and every other book ever written, I would unhesitatingly choose the Gospels.
Stardusty: "There are no sound arguments for god, none whatsoever. There never have been. The ancient arguments are particularly bad, and the modern ones fall apart quickly as well."
" If this was true, I wouldn't believe in God. " --Then please name a sound argument for god.
"I have been given zero good reasons to believe atheism is even possible, let alone probable. They all amount to "just because" arguments." --Is our observation of the physical world "just because"?
Stardusty: "Interesting, please point out how shallow the referenced analysis is for..."
" I'll eyeball it later this evening, going kayaking now." --Isn't your internet device getting kind of wet?-)
" I too do not base my belief in God on Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways (although I do acknowledge their unimpeachable reasoning)." --Then you have not studied them with any significant critical depth.
" I base my faith on the trustworthiness of the Gospels and on the Apostolic Witness as faithfully passed on to today by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Despite 2000 years of trying, no one has yet to lay a glove on either of " these." --Fairy tales and tabloid rumors.
Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
obviously they do, It may be unprovable that does not stop them theorizing about it,
What is the mathematical model of god?
8 on it's side
" such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level" --You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
that is not a matter of intelligence or reasoning it requires specific knowledge,l you don't how to make html milks because you never do on this board, with thinking if you can't see something you cant believe in it,
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" obviously they do, " --You know nothing, in that case, of how scientists approach a problem.
Nobody believes in strings. Strings are just a speculative field of research that has not shown itself to be terribly fruitful. Some scientists may hold the opinion that eventually some sort of string theory will likely be worked out. Nobody has faith that such theories are true and if somebody comes along with a better theory it will not be a crisis of faith to change to that theory.
SP What is the mathematical model of god?
" 8 on it's side" --You obviously do not know what a mathematical model is. When the model has solutions that go to infinity that means it is not formulated correctly. Renormalization has been an approach to such a situation, the other is abandonment of that part of the theory.
" such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level" SP --You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
" that is not a matter of intelligence or reasoning it requires specific knowledge," --You are a site owner who does not know how to use a URL and then find a post by date/time tag? WTF?
"l you don't how to make html milks because you never do on this board, with thinking if you can't see something you cant believe in it," --Now you are just mumbling incoherently. The link and the date/time tag is right there, functional, and obvious.
The fact is that neither you or Mortal has any capacity to engage me on the merits and form rational counter arguments that negate my carefully written arguments at the link and tags provided.
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" To the first question, I used to play chess in high school with this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Polchinski" --He undoubtedly made for an interesting chess opponent, or teammate, I am not sure which was the case. In any event he is obviously a very bright guy.
I can't find anything from Polchinski resembling a statement of faith in strings, or a belief in strings, or treatment of strings as though they must necessarily be real.
He does consider that "String theory (and the entire base of physics upon which it has been built)is one of mankind’s great achievements". http://stringworld.ru/files/Polchinski_J._String_theory._Vol._1._An_introduction_to_the_bosonic_string.pdf
But that does not mean he believes in him.
One publication said "Physicists believe that the best hope for a fundamental theory of nature – including unification of quantum mechanics with general relativity and elementary particle theory – lies in string theory". http://stringworld.ru/files/Polchinski_J._String_theory._Vol._2._Superstring_theory_and_beyond.pdf
So, yes, physicists believe things, they believe that one line of research is more likely to lead to advances than another line of research.
Physics theories are not things to believe in, they are simply believed to be the best description presently available and in some cases highly accurate models of reality and in other cases speculative research that is thought to be the most likely to be ultimately successful.
" The most cursory glance showed them to be not worthy of anyone's time. I did read through them to make sure I hadn't missed anything interesting. I hadn't." --Interesting, What defects did you spot during your "cursory glance"?
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" To the first question, I used to play chess in high school with this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Polchinski" July 30, 2017 4:36 PM
Here is his conclusion from book II: 19.10 Conclusion Especially in this final chapter, we have only been able to scratch the surface of many important and beautiful ideas. String theory is a rich structure, whose full form is not yet understood. It is a mathematical structure, but deeply grounded in physics. It incorporates and unifies the central principles of physics: quantum mechanics, gauge symmetry, and general relativity, as well as anticipated new principles: supersymmetry, grand unification, and Kaluza–Klein theory. Undoubtedly there are many remarkable discoveries still to be made. http://stringworld.ru/files/Polchinski_J._String_theory._Vol._2._Superstring_theory_and_beyond.pdf
--Sorry, I just do not see any statement of "belief" similar to the the way a theist will profess belief in god.
Your points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are flat out opinion (or maybe your wishes), which you mistake for fact.
Your point number 9 demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what the First Way even says. You have no idea what you are arguing against. It's embarrassing to even read such inanity.
" Your points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are flat out opinion (or maybe your wishes), which you mistake for fact." --That's why you would need to read the arguments referenced below. Each one of those points is supported with significant argument. Dismissing the summary listing of assertions without specifically addressing the arguments for them is meaningless on your part.
" Your point number 9 demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what the First Way even says." --Again, you would have to read the arguments referenced below the summary list. The plain text of the description of a causal series is incontrovertibly a description of a temporal regress.
However, Thomists do a great deal of "what he really meant to say" sorts of excuse making, apparently unaware that their assertion that plainly temporal language actually refers to an ontological series is actually what makes the First Way defective beyond all repair.
It's all covered in the referenced posts: https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
Stardusty: "Then please name a sound argument for god."
My experience with self-described skeptics is that they cannot fathom the possibility of their own powers of reasoning leading them astray. Case in point, in the Haines thread I directly quoted past statements for Cal multiple times irrefutably proving him wrong on some point or other, and he was incapable of acknowledging being wrong. Point being, self-described skeptics have their minds made up. There is nothing profitable to be gained by making the attempt.
But even if I did make the attempt and presented every argument I found compelling, it would still do neither of us any good. I find atheism to be quite indefensible, and that would not change if you managed to actually convince me Christianity was no good. Try offering evidence or arguments that atheism is a reasonable position - that's potentially more productive for you than convincing me that Christianity belongs with atheism in the "irrational" category.
If all you're seeking is opportunity to snipe at Christianity, I'm sure there are plenty of others here happy to play defense. Not my style.
Stardusty: "Is our observation of the physical world "just because"?"
Is the physical world your justification for atheism?
Stardusty: "Isn't your internet device getting kind of wet?-)"
Last time I went, I actually did manage to dunk my phone, but although I was too stupid to bring a ziplock bag to keep it in, I had the presence of mind to turn it off prior to getting in the kayak, so it did no damage.
Stardusty: "Then please name a sound argument for god."
" My experience with self-described skeptics is that they cannot fathom the possibility of their own powers of reasoning leading them astray. " --That is the antithesis of scientific thought. The scientifically minded person begins with the exclamation of the biases and faults and many ways that human perception can deceive us.
From there we seek to identify and control for those potential human frailties. That is a big part of the scientific method and "ought" to be an ever present consideration in the mind of a "true" skeptic.
"Case in point, in the Haines thread I directly quoted past statements for Cal multiple times irrefutably proving him wrong on some point or other, and he was incapable of acknowledging being wrong. " --Guilt by association fallacy. I only recall one instance when I misread your words. The odd thing was that when I reread that particular passage I misread it the same way several times! At last, I read your rebuttal very carefully word by word, and compared to the the previous statements and was somewhat flabbergasted to realize that I had in fact misread the passage several times.
I really reflected on that for some time. It reminded me of some of the cognitive artifacts we used to play around with to trick each other as kids, or some of the ways Daniel Dennet points out we tend to fool ourselves.
Well, nobody is immune. Any reasonable skeptic will be the first to tell you so and gladly admit when he himself gets caught up in such.
" But even if I did make the attempt and presented every argument I found compelling, " --Oh, I wasn't really thinking of any full presentations. There really are not very many, and they all have names, unless you feel you have some unique argument that has yet to be published. Kalam Beauty Ontological first cause Morality Personal experience Design Fine tuning etc.
Stardusty: "Is our observation of the physical world "just because"?"
" Is the physical world your justification for atheism?" --That's the start. On modern knowledge of science there is no necessity for god. Naturalism is sufficient.
Stardusty: "Isn't your internet device getting kind of wet?-)"
" Last time I went, I actually did manage to dunk my phone, but although I was too stupid to bring a ziplock bag to keep it in, I had the presence of mind to turn it off prior to getting in the kayak, so it did no damage." --"It is in our nature that we do not recognize our mistakes until after we have made them." ---- Christopher Hitchens
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" obviously they do, " --You know nothing, in that case, of how scientists approach a problem.
you have not been in a Ph,D, program for 10 year and you have not studied history science in the that program,so I know more than you do about science,
Nobody believes in strings. Strings are just a speculative field of research that has not shown itself to be terribly fruitful. Some scientists may hold the opinion that eventually some sort of string theory will likely be worked out. Nobody has faith that such theories are true and if somebody comes along with a better theory it will not be a crisis of faith to change to that theory.
O right they their work the same way George Perez regards his works for DC comics it;ws just fun filled fantasy you are really are an idiot. If that's what you think theoretical mean then you really knkow nothing about science. They do belive in sub atomic particles and string are merely sub atomic particles viewed a different angel,
"The bassic idea behind String Theory is that all of the different "fundamental particles" of the Standard Model are really just different versions of one basic object: - a vibrating oscillating string. Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely "powerful microscope" (way beyond today's capabilities) we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of vibrating string (sometimes called a filament). A string can do somethings besides move - it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates one way, then from a distance we see an electron and we are unable to tell it is really a string. But if it oscillates some other way, we call it a photon, or a quark, and so forth. If String Theory is correct, the entire universe is made of oscillating strings. See the illustration at the left showing some strings that might make up a quark."
I wrote a post answering his little quips with much more cleaver ones but reading it back back I could not hear words without Steven Cobert's voice imitation Donald Trump,.
It's so laughable that he thinks knowing some little computer thing is proof of intelligence and that knowing that somehow disproves all the ideas and logic and thinking about God.
His concept of science is nothing but technological wizardry. Unless you can can manipulate hard data and visibly see results one can't place confidence in an hypothesis, Of course never mind the inanity of reducing belief to hypothesis testing.
most puerile of all he set's up a mathematical model of a thing as the acid test but funny how reality obeys the relative dictates of 21st century scinetism.
"-That is the antithesis of scientific thought. The scientifically minded person begins with the exclamation of the biases and faults and many ways that human perception can deceive us.
From there we seek to identify and control for those potential human frailties. That is a big part of the scientific method and "ought" to be an ever present consideration in the mind of a "true" skeptic."
No that is not science. This guy is the poster boy for scientism. That is nothing more than a description of scinetism, it's ideology and propaganda.
" But even if I did make the attempt and presented every argument I found compelling, " --Oh, I wasn't really thinking of any full presentations. There really are not very many, and they all have names, unless you feel you have some unique argument that has yet to be published. Kalam Beauty Ontological first cause Morality Personal experience Design Fine tuning etc.
are you saying those are all the God arguments there are? Platinga has 150 at one point,you can;t argue the one's you named.
you left out mine,m go back up to the link I gave read my debate,
While Dusty lectures on his expertise in smashing Aquinas let's back to another time and examine his discussion on the modal argument. Of course there;s not much chance of beating him because he knows that computer thingie.
we are in nuclear confrontation, the misses are on their way,I would pray for redemption but hey Dusty knew the computer tine thing so there must not be a God to pray to.
Let's re visit a discussion on modal argument i had with him
" you have not been in a Ph,D, program for 10 year " --Where are you in a PhD program exactly? The University of Matchbook Covers?
Dude, if you have been at it for 10 years, you have a problem. 1.You chose some thesis topic so outlandishly difficult you have no hope of completion. 2.You chose some thesis topic so outlandishly simple you have no hope of being credited with a PhD on the basis of researching something that trivial. 3.You are such an incompetent twit nobody is ever going to even allow you to defend your thesis (dissertation) or if they do they will rip it to shreds and reject your defense.
My advice to you is to get a different mentor, reevaluate your completion plan, and get it done already before you die of old age.
" George Perez regards his works for DC comics " --WTF are you prattling on about now?
" Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. " --You are an idiot. Learn something about the conventional properties of an electron before you open your dumbass mouth.
" you left out mine," --Like what? And no, I am not going to your site. You are continually making the rounds trying to leech off other blogs to divert traffic to your site, so you can act like a total jackass to anybody who tries to engage you there.
" you left out mine," --Like what? And no, I am not going to your site. You are continually making the rounds trying to leech off other blogs to divert traffic to your site, so you can act like a total jackass to anybody who tries to engage you there.
that is a silly excuse to doge answering after you set your self up as the lecturer on the weakness of God arguments. No one thinks adding two milks a week in addition to my comments is spam. about half the time they fit the subject matter,
No thanks.
O that's right you got that computer time thing you don;tneed to think
Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. " --You are an idiot. Learn something about the conventional properties of an electron before you open your dumbass mouth.
ahahahhahahahhahh you doesn't even understand my point. he;s punching around at random because he hopes he hits something
10 years on PhD is not uncommon,It's not like community college which I suspect is your highest level
btw it university of Texas at Dallas.you would not understand what I studied,
" Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. " --You are an idiot. Learn something about the conventional properties of an electron before you open your dumbass mouth.
I did not say that dumbo the guy who wrote the article said it, He had credentials in science do you/ other than community college,
" btw it university of Texas at Dallas.you would not understand what I studied," --Interesting, what department? What is your thesis topic?
History of ideas. My thesis: The Latitudinarians and other Christians who popularized Newton's physics ad helped established modern science shot themselves in the foot and prepared the way for skeptics like d'Holdbach and LaPlace to reject religion in the same of science by not maintaining the original concept of the supernatural.
" I did not say that dumbo the guy who wrote the article said it," --Then why repeat it if the guy is so dumb? FYI, an electron is modeled with properties of mass, charge, and spin. If spin is considered to be angular momentum then that is at odds with the notion that the electron is a point, since a zero radius object will have zero angular momentum.
Electrons can also be accelerated and thus have kinetic energy and interact with other charged particles without necessarily contacting them by virtue of their electric field associated with their charge.
An electron in an atom also sets up a magnetic field since the movement of the electron is in some sense a current. An electron can absorb a photon and take on a higher orbital energy level, and then emit a photon when it drops to a lower energy level.
This is basic physics I can recite from memory while you are quoting dumbos, probably because you have only a vague notion of what I am talking about and just pasted his words based on your perception of his "credentials".
You are incapable of going to the link, reading the arguments, and forming any cogent counter arguments. All you do is take scattered potshots, quote dumbos, make a lot of claims about how great you are, try to divert traffic to your site, and never actually engage in a thoughtful exchange.
You have proven yourself entirely incapable in any sort of cogent rational discourse, which is why you do not form cogent, on topic counter arguments. You don't know how to, or if you do, you keep that skill well hidden.
" I did not say that dumbo the guy who wrote the article said it," --Then why repeat it if the guy is so dumb?
that's so cute, no would ever think of that one/
FYI, an electron is modeled with properties of mass, charge, and spin. If spin is considered to be angular momentum then that is at odds with the notion that the electron is a point, since a zero radius object will have zero angular momentum.
Jethro goes to the draft and they give him a test. the question says:if A dogs a hole and B digs a hole..." Jethro says "It's a trick question, they didn't say a what. I've seen that explanation about strings many times by physicists on all sorts of sites,particles are repented by points, they are called points because they are not lines.It's obvious you don't know anything about the stuff you flap your gums over. where are your scientific credentials? where did you do your doctoral work? ++ Electrons can also be accelerated and thus have kinetic energy and interact with other charged particles without necessarily contacting them by virtue of their electric field associated with their charge.
An electron in an atom also sets up a magnetic field since the movement of the electron is in some sense a current. An electron can absorb a photon and take on a higher orbital energy level, and then emit a photon when it drops to a lower energy level.
that has no bearing on the quote,
This is basic physics I can recite from memory while you are quoting dumbos, probably because you have only a vague notion of what I am talking about and just pasted his words based on your perception of his "credentials".
I see you know nothing about string theory the quote in the article was not written by me fool.Stop pretending like you are drugging with me,you contradicting a scientist,
String theory - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
"Image result for what are strings in string theory? In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. ... Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity."
[note the quotation marks do you know what those are? you missed them last time]
In quantum mechanics, there is a distinction between an elementary particle (also called "point particle") and a composite particle. ... The particle wavepacket always occupies a nonzero volume. For example, see atomic orbital: The electron is an elementary particle, but its quantum states form three-dimensional patterns. Point particle - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
Concept of a point particle in quantum mechanics up vote 10 down vote favorite 5
"A point particle is usually thought of as structureless and without dimension. However, given that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prohibits us from knowing the position of a particle exactly, what is the significance of the concept of a point particle? Are point particles equivalent to elementary particles?"
note the title of this next one
Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?
"String theory gives physicists reason to believe that particles are 1-dimensional strings because the theory has a purpose - unifying gravity with the gauge theories.
So why is it that it's popular belief that particles are 0-dimensional points? Was there ever a proposed theory of them being like this? And why?
What reason do physicists have to believe that particles are 0-dimensional points as opposed to 1-dimensional strings?"
contradicts several things you said,
Fermi lab, you going to tell them they know nothing about it? title:L What's the point? https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html
"The quarks, leptons and bosons of the Standard Model are point-like particles. Every other subatomic particle you�ve heard of is an extended particle. The most familiar are the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom, but there are many others—pions, kaons, Lambda particles, omegas and lots more. The defining feature of these kinds of particles is that they have a reasonably measurable size (which happens to be about the size of a proton)."
Joe Polchinski clearly thinks that the claims made by string theory are true, and he thinks he has good reasons to think this. He could be mistaken. Physicists like Lee Smolin think he is. It is the same with theists and atheists. Theists typically think they have reasons, atheists think they don't. The beliefs are not different in kind, though they are not different in significance for those who believe or don't.
There is an ambiguity on the issue of fundamental particles as point-like particles. They are modelled as point-like particles (just look at the Lagrangean, at the fundamental Green propagator, etc.), but at the same time there are coherent notions of the radius of an electron as measured say, in scattering experiments. And by the way, spin or *intrinsic* angular momentum is an internal degree of freedom, is quite distinct from orbital angular momentum, which would be the proper quantum counterpart of the classical angular momentum -- that is probably the second or third thing it is drilled on you in a first serious course in QM -- that can be seen as arising from Neother's theorem and rotational invariance. To quote E. Merzbacher, "Quantum Mechanics", 2ed (an oldie by now), pg. 254-255:
"According to the Goudsmith-Uhlenbeck hypothesis, we must envisage the electron to be a point charge with finite magnetic dipole moment, the projection of which can only take two values.
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck also postulated that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum (spin), but this quantity is not nearly as easy to measure directly as the magnetic moment."
" Joe Polchinski clearly thinks that the claims made by string theory are true, and he thinks he has good reasons to think this. He could be mistaken. Physicists like Lee Smolin think he is. It is the same with theists and atheists. Theists typically think they have reasons, atheists think they don't. The beliefs are not different in kind, though they are not different in significance for those who believe or don't." July 31, 2017 11:24 AM
You are making an equivalency that is not the case.
The difference between physicists who think string theory is more likely compared to physicists who think some other theory is more likely, is more like the difference between a Catholic and a Lutheran, or perhaps between an A+ atheist and me.
Those are rough analogies, not intended to be some sort of precise gauge, but my point is that for many theists the mental processes of faith and belief in god are so ingrained it seems difficult to imagine their absence, so I have frequently had a theist, in all good intention, tell me this or that is my god. The very idea that one could not have a god of any sort is so foreign to many theists that they project their faith thought process onto others who simply do not function by the faith thought process.
There is an ambiguity on the issue of fundamental particles as point-like particles.... (just look at the Lagrangean, at the fundamental Green propagator, etc.), but at the same time there are coherent notions of the radius of an electron as measured say, in scattering experiments.
And by the way, spin or *intrinsic* angular momentum is an internal degree of freedom, is quite distinct from orbital angular momentum,
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck also postulated that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum (spin), but this quantity is not nearly as easy to measure directly as the magnetic moment."
--Geeee, your amazing copy and paste skills had me thinking you are a really super smart physics guy, but then you copied and pasted statements that don't work so well together, as well as confusing orbital angular momentum with the angular momentum of an individual spinning particle, almost like you don't know what the hell you are even talking about...
" that's so cute, ...Jethro goes to the draft ...flap your gums over. ...you "
As always, you display no capacity to engage in rational discourse.
All you ever do throw is out some pointless quips and then copy and paste a series of quotes, completely unable to form a rational, on topic argument in your own words.
According to this, you "was" a PhD student, past tense. It says you quit, citing family issues. Now you are a so-called "independent scholar".
Your story smells like horse pucky.
I read some of Deep Structures on google. Do you have a ghost writer? Your blogging is a scattered mess by comparison. The book is still drivel, but at least you manage to put somewhat well structured sentences together.
"Mr. Hinman did his undergraduate work in sociology and debate at the University of Texas at Arlington. He earned a Masters degree in Theological studies where he focused upon history of doctrine at Perkins school of Theology, Southern Methodist University. He was a Ph.D. candidate in the History of Ideas (Intellectual History) and studied at the doctoral level for several years at University of Texas at Dallas. He began work focusing upon Derrida and the postmodern understanding of the self. He then switched and spent five years studying history and philosophy of science, focusing upon Newton, Boyle and the Latitudinarians. In the process of completing his dissertation, he was forced to terminate his studies ABD (all but the dissertation) due to family tragedies. Mr. Hinman published the peer-reviewed academic journal, Negations: an interdisciplinary journal of social criticism. He now works as an independent scholar. " https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
I thought Dusty said I was so stupid for saying particles are points,even though I didn't say that, so I put out evince showing physicists do think of particles as points,everyone you quoted refereed to particles as points.
You are making an equivalency that is not the case.
The difference between physicists who think string theory is more likely compared to physicists who think some other theory is more likely, is more like the difference between a Catholic and a Lutheran, or perhaps between an A+ atheist and me.
Those are rough analogies, not intended to be some sort of precise gauge, but my point is that for many theists the mental processes of faith and belief in god are so ingrained it seems difficult to imagine their absence, so I have frequently had a theist, in all good intention, tell me this or that is my god. The very idea that one could not have a god of any sort is so foreign to many theists that they project their faith thought process onto others who simply do not function by the faith thought process.
there is a minority of physicists called realists and other schools under that umbrella who say the things they theorize about are real and we can know how thins work literally. Most physicists are what the realists call Humeans who don't think it's a literal 1x1 correspondence but that there are metaphors it's all approximation.
I thought that might have been what Dusty was talking about when he said no no one believes in string theory. Now I'm mo so sure
All you ever do throw is out some pointless quips and then copy and paste a series of quotes, completely unable to form a rational, on topic argument in your own words.
According to this, you "was" a PhD student, past tense. It says you quit, citing family issues. Now you are a so-called "independent scholar".
Your story smells like horse pucky.
Don't fowl yourself in an attempt to insult someone else,.
First of all you have not told us where you did your doctoral work? Nor where you did your Masters? I do have a Masters,do you?
Secondly,I was in doctoral work 10 years I had 4.0 half that time.I passed qualifying examines with a commendation form the committee.I quite ABD (all but dissertation).
I read some of Deep Structures on google. Do you have a ghost writer? Your blogging is a scattered mess by comparison. The book is still drivel, but at least you manage to put somewhat well structured sentences together.
No one just dashes off a book and sends it to the publisher, that you don't knw how hard it is to write a book tells me you have never done it.All Publishers will proof manuscripts. I work really hard to makemy postslegible.,I tke ten timeslongeron thenthen mostpeople,I scjltthemoverandover, but here;s whatI;'msupagain
(1) I can barelysee (2)i'm lying flat on my back (3)I have dyslexia (4) I was in a coma for two months (priming of 15) I has stopped breathing so suffered some brain damage,I am bedfast and in a nursing home and will probably never walk again. I had a superbot infection that was resistant to antibiotics and came so close to dying all the doctors at the hospital but one wanted to take me off life support.
"Mr. Hinman did his undergraduate work in sociology and debate at the University of Texas at Arlington. He earned a Masters degree in Theological studies where he focused upon history of doctrine at Perkins school of Theology, Southern Methodist University. He was a Ph.D. candidate in the History of Ideas (Intellectual History) and studied at the doctoral level for several years at University of Texas at Dallas. He began work focusing upon Derrida and the postmodern understanding of the self. He then switched and spent five years studying history and philosophy of science, focusing upon Newton, Boyle and the Latitudinarians. In the process of completing his dissertation, he was forced to terminate his studies ABD (all but the dissertation) due to family tragedies. Mr. Hinman published the peer-reviewed academic journal, Negations: an interdisciplinary journal of social criticism. He now works as an independent scholar. " https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
"Geeee, your amazing copy and paste skills had me thinking you are a really super smart physics guy, but then you copied and pasted statements that don't work so well together, as well as confusing orbital angular momentum with the angular momentum of an individual spinning particle, almost like you don't know what the hell you are even talking about..."
I confused nothing whatsoever, much less orbital angular momentum with spin, as can be easily seen by actually reading what I wrote. It is one of the perks of actually having had an education the capacity to smell a fake and fraud miles away, and you stink -- and when your bullshit is called out, you predictably behave like the typical internet juvenile punk.
". I work really hard to makemy postslegible.,I tke ten timeslongeron thenthen mostpeople," --Right, I am not talking about legibility. What you do is not an issue of legibility. What you do is almost immediately turn to book writing mode while in a conversation.
In book writing mode you have a set of ideas you wish to convey, so you research, cite your sources, and give a long written speech.
That's not a conversation.
What you don't do here or elsewhere is read for comprehension the points the other person is making and respond on topic to those points.
What you do instead is pull out a few words, make some quips, and then launch into a speech that is oblivious to the arguments the other person made.
That's not a conversation.
I scjltthemoverandover, but here;s whatI;'msupagain
(1) I can barelysee (2)i'm lying flat on my back (3)I have dyslexia (4) I was in a coma for two months (priming of 15) I has stopped breathing so suffered some brain damage,I am bedfast and in a nursing home and will probably never walk again. I had a superbot infection that was resistant to antibiotics and came so close to dying all the doctors at the hospital but one wanted to take me off life support." --No wonder you seem so grumpy. I get real grumpy sometimes when I am in pain or I can't do the things I want to do. That is human nature.
I suggest you take a scientific approach to control for the limitations and biases you are faced with. As you well know, humans have many cognitive and perceptual biases, as well as limits in our available observations. Science seeks to identify and control for these effects.
My advice to you is that if you wish to engage in a productive discourse with those who disagree with you the first thing you need to do is concentrate on what the other person is saying, come to understand that other viewpoint, and limit your responses to words that are germane to the rational content of what is actually being argued.
Pulling out a few words, issuing cryptic quips, citing long sources that address only your strawman or the speech you wish to make, and accusatory speculations about the other's supposed lack of authority to speak are all less than pointless, rather, they are strongly counterproductive.
Open question to anyone reading, to be somewhat more on topic, the basic question regarding a given belief would be, at what point do we know that the belief is
A) one that can be held with certainty B) one that can be assumed to likely be true due to probability or reasonableness C) one that can be suspected is true but judgment should be withheld D) one that can be suspected is not true but judgment should be withheld E) one that can be assumed to likely not be true due to low probability or reasonableness F) one that can be dismissed with certainty
As there are exactly zero experts on objectively weighing the significance of a piece of evidence, particularly in an area not open to experimentation, what makes a belief fall into one of the six categories above, and how do we know? Logical consistency does not make something reflective of reality (though logical inconsistency can disqualify), so what are the criteria you use, and why do you hold your own weighing of evidence as being superior to that of people who disagree?
" A) one that can be held with certainty B) one that can be assumed to likely be true due to probability or reasonableness C) one that can be suspected is true but judgment should be withheld D) one that can be suspected is not true but judgment should be withheld E) one that can be assumed to likely not be true due to low probability or reasonableness F) one that can be dismissed with certainty"
--Those classifications are along atheistic lines, judging probabilities by weight of evidence.
You omitted belief along theistic lines, irrational beliefs, prejudiced beliefs, beliefs by indoctrination, by emotion, and beliefs against evidence, faith based beliefs.
People believe things for a variety of reasons, and not uncommonly, primarily because they have been told so for as long as they can remember. Some such beliefs are what nearly all of us consider reprehensible, such and racial prejudices believed because one grew up in a racially prejudiced social environment.
Some theists claim to have what they consider a "reasonable faith". Yet even among those who profess to have come to their faith by way of reason they typically embrace unabashedly and even proudly their supposed "personal experience" of god, that imagined sense of somehow having detected or connected with or felt the presence of god on a visceral level.
Such usages of the term "belief" are anathema to physicists. That is the point I have been trying to express to Victor and others who may be interested.
Physicists do have strong opinions that could roughly be categorized in your A through F above. They do not have belief in the sense of faith, as a theist has, and thus my demonstration of the false equivalency between the belief of a physicist in a particular theory, as opposed to the belief of a theist in god.
" I confused nothing whatsoever, " --Actually you did. I suggest you do a more careful job the next time you try to fake yourself off as a learned individual by your copy and paste routine.
" you stink" --Oh yest, you are such a learned scholar, just look at the airtight logical argumentation you employ!
" you predictably behave like the typical internet juvenile punk." --My my my, oh yes, how my brain is just overwhelmed by your scholarly dissertations.
Tell you what, physics genius, please explain to me why something that is not changing calls for a changer.
You are obviously such a great Thomist, I am sure you can find all the flaws in the arguments summarized here: https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Details Here: July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
SP Tell you what, physics genius, please explain to me why something that is not changing calls for a changer.
" Where did you ever get that idea?" --I get the idea that a thing that is not changing does not call for a changer from the principle of non-contradiction. Things that are being changed call for a changer. Things that are not changing do not call for a changer. Pretty simple.
" And why do you not link to the original posts HERE that include rebuttals" 1.Those "rebuttals" are scattered and irrational with no argumentation merit and thus not worthy of being referenced. 2.Despite the lack of value of those rebuttals I have anticipated the form of misconceptions expressed in them and addressed them in my detailed arguments. 3.You already linked them previously. 4.You are free to provide whatever links you wish. 5.I am not terribly inclined to link conversation against conversation across various blog sites.
Where Dr Feser rebuts the assertion that inertia contradicts the First Way?
From the section labeled: "II. Why the conflict is illusory"
From the link to Feser's blog: “3. The “state” of motion: … the principle of inertia treats uniform local motion as a “state,” it treats it thereby as the absence of change. “ --Here Feser acknowledges that uniform motion is the absence of change.
Why would one assert a cause for no change? Why should we need an explanation for the fact that things stay as they are absent any change?
1) Dr Feser is arguing that inertia does not contradict the First Way. 2) The First Way concerns things that are in motion/change. 3) Some argue inertia contradicts the First Way since it may appear that things move/change themselves. 4) But if inertia is considered no change, then those things said to be changing are not actually changing 5) So then if those things are not actually moving/changing, then they cannot contradict the First Way since they are not actually moving/changing. 6) So inertia does not contradict the First Way.
It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out.
I have anticipated the form of misconceptions expressed in them and addressed them in my detailed arguments.
No you haven't responded on Dr Feser's site nor on Dr Reppert's.
As evidence you just posted this comment which I pointed out is irrelevant to contradict the First Way for 3 different reasons.
--I get the idea that a thing that is not changing does not call for a changer from the principle of non-contradiction. Things that are being changed call for a changer. Things that are not changing do not call for a changer. Pretty simple.
I suggest you take a scientific approach to control for the limitations and biases you are faced with. As you well know, humans have many cognitive and perceptual biases, as well as limits in our available observations. Science seeks to identify and control for these effects.
you are truly a self important little moron, your idiotic criticism now boils down to I'm not conversational enough what a fool! you are such a jackass., I've wasted too much of my life arguing with fools who are too stupid to get it.
". I work really hard to makemy postslegible.,I tke ten timeslongeron thenthen mostpeople," --Right, I am not talking about legibility. What you do is not an issue of legibility. What you do is almost immediately turn to book writing mode while in a conversation.
In book writing mode you have a set of ideas you wish to convey, so you research, cite your sources, and give a long written speech.
That's not a conversation. so nos this jackass wants me to think his real argument is that I'm not conversational enough!!!! sorry I din't know this was Good morning Ameliorate,I know the old wind up about spelling when I see it.
I think what really happened is he makes these insults about my spieling but then get's this list of limitations I'm facing so he swatches to something I could deal with like being conversational,Except it's petty issue and I care.
What you don't do here or elsewhere is read for comprehension the points the other person is making and respond on topic to those points.
you are the guy who doesn't get when I'm quoting other people bukt I don't have the comprehension?
What you do instead is pull out a few words, make some quips, and then launch into a speech that is oblivious to the arguments the other person made.
of course you lack the intelligence to read the content of the speech and pull it all together into a case.
That's not a conversation.
this is not a conversation no, most of my conversations are not about how those who disagree with me don't know anything about science,
(1) I can barelysee (2)i'm lying flat on my back (3)I have dyslexia (4) I was in a coma for two months (priming of 15) I has stopped breathing so suffered some brain damage,I am bedfast and in a nursing home and will probably never walk again. I had a superbot infection that was resistant to antibiotics and came so close to dying all the doctors at the hospital but one wanted to take me off life support." --No wonder you seem so grumpy. I get real grumpy sometimes when I am in pain or I can't do the things I want to do. That is human nature.
I suggest you take a scientific approach to control for the limitations and biases you are faced with. As you well know, humans have many cognitive and perceptual biases, as well as limits in our available observations. Science seeks to identify and control for these effects.
I suggest you take a flying...leap...at the moon,
My advice to you is that if you wish to engage in a productive discourse with those who disagree with you the first thing you need to do is concentrate on what the other person is saying, come to understand that other viewpoint, and limit your responses to words that are germane to the rational content of what is actually being argued.
now he's worried about productive discourse,
Pulling out a few words, issuing cryptic quips, citing long sources that address only your strawman or the speech you wish to make, and accusatory speculations about the other's supposed lack of authority to speak are all less than pointless, rather, they are strongly counterproductive.
so is ragging on people's personal histories you known nothing about and insulting people who know more than you because you can't take the fact that a Christian bested you,
Stardusty: "Those classifications are along atheistic lines, judging probabilities by weight of evidence.
You omitted belief along theistic lines, irrational beliefs, prejudiced beliefs, beliefs by indoctrination, by emotion, and beliefs against evidence, faith based beliefs."
Well this is easily the most foolish thing you've written (that I've seen) in quite some time, but it is also a typical mindset in the skeptic brain. Skeptics think so highly of themselves and so little of theists, yet there is zero justification for thinking so - a solid F in my categories.
“3. The “state” of motion: … the principle of inertia treats uniform local motion as a “state,” it treats it thereby as the absence of change. “ --Here Feser acknowledges that uniform motion is the absence of change.
" It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out." --I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article, since you both write irrationally.
I have written a series of principles and arguments that form a comprehensive negation of any call for a first mover. Whether you think one particular point I made address what you consider to be some other point in the article is of no concern to me. Your argumentation has shown itself to be disjointed and scattered.
My statement stands. When things don't change no changer is called for.
Stardusty: "Those classifications are along atheistic lines, judging probabilities by weight of evidence.
You omitted belief along theistic lines, irrational beliefs, prejudiced beliefs, beliefs by indoctrination, by emotion, and beliefs against evidence, faith based beliefs."
" Well this is easily the most foolish thing you've written (that I've seen) in quite some time, but it is also a typical mindset in the skeptic brain." --I am not surprised you equate the two, that is, you equate the mental workings of the skeptic's brain with foolishness.
" Skeptics think so highly of themselves and so little of theists, yet there is zero justification for thinking so - a solid F in my categories. Sad. " --You apparently consider your mode of thinking to be higher in some sense than that of skeptics, so it seems you suffer from the same F grade thinking you are accusing the other of.
Indeed, I do consider the rejection of social indoctrination and critical examination in opposition to socialization in imaginary assertions to be superior to merely accepting the things we are told. Yes, I consider critical examination and demands for evidence to be superior to a fantasy of an invisible man who will somehow make a list, check it twice, finding out who's naughty or nice, and send the nice folks to an invisible paradise while sending the naughty folks to eternal torturous agony because he loves them.
Yes, it does take a certain sort of gullibility to believe that there actually is such an invisible man out there that you are going to meet when you die.
" people's personal histories you known nothing about " --Your bio is publicly available on Amazon, and you have shared a number of personal historical details here and on other blogs.
So, for me to know nothing about your personal history would require that you provided all false personal information to Amazon and you have provided all false personal information here.
Have you falsified your personal information on Amazon and here?
I challenge the idea that there can be such a thing. Or, at the least, if there were such a thing - we'd never know it. It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it. Therefore, everything of which we have empirical knowledge has been changed by our knowing of its existence.
Stardusty: "You apparently consider your mode of thinking to be higher in some sense than that of skeptics"
Based on the collective interactions I've had with self-described skeptics, I do indeed believe my ability to align my views with evidence is superior to theirs. Which is sad, because self-described skeptics are the ones who claim to uphold this manner of thinking as a virtue.
Stardusty: " I do consider the rejection of social indoctrination and critical examination in opposition to socialization in imaginary assertions to be superior to merely accepting the things we are told."
These two categories, even if they were the only two options, do not neatly align with theism and non-theism. If they did, I wouldn't be a theist, and self-described skeptics wouldn't be so gullible due to their ironclad faith in their own powers of reason.
Stardusty: "Yes, I consider critical examination and demands for evidence to be superior to a fantasy of an invisible man who will somehow make a list, check it twice, finding out who's naughty or nice, and send the nice folks to an invisible paradise while sending the naughty folks to eternal torturous agony because he loves them."
Another thing I love about self-described skeptics is their childish caricatures of their opponents' viewpoints, rather than engaging them on what the other actually believes and why. It's quite easy to understand why they do this, as the arrogance of self-described skeptics does not permit any allowance of intellectual charity for someone who disagrees with them. Based on its representatives, skepticism seems to be largely defined by immaturity, both intellectual and emotional.
Stardusty: "Yes, it does take a certain sort of gullibility to believe that there actually is such an invisible man out there that you are going to meet when you die."
Rather, it takes a certain amount of critical thinking skills to realize the plain truth that atheism is not tenable as a description of reality, based on utter lack of supporting evidence, and that "just because" is somehow a superior worldview. I'm mesmerized by such powerful reasoning skills, yes sir.
I'm waiting for a self-described skeptic who is capable of employing his chosen virtues. Does such a person exist, or are they all simply not interested in an online presence? Because I've yet to encounter one.
" It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out." --I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article
Thank you for summarizing what I have observed from you.
You really don't understand nor even care to understand any of the views you think you are criticizing. As a result, you end up criticizing arguments you have made up in your head when you aren't engaged in ad hominem, genetic or the other numerous fallacies you commit every time you post.
This also explains why you imagine you have addressed any objections. Strawdusty Translation: "I don't understand the objections and don't much care to so there!" 😛
Mortal said: "It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it."
In Quantum physics, it has been observed that some types observation change subatomic particles. Some scientific measuring techniques are, in fact, invasive. However, this is not a fundamental principle nor true of all observations.
I'll go out on a limb here and double down on my comment. Let's say there's some distant galaxy out there, 200 million light years away, and the Hubble Space Telescope takes a picture of it. In order for it to have done so, it must interrupt the flow of a defined subset of the photons streaming from that galaxy, which otherwise would have continued on unimpeded. You have changed what otherwise would have been an undisturbed system. (I am, of course, here defining a galaxy as not only the stars themselves that make it up, but also all particles (and waves) emanating from those stars.)
I realize that this is the most tenuous of changes, but nevertheless, a change has been effectuated by the observation.
" I challenge the idea that there can be such a thing." --Very well then, you win that challenge.
" Or, at the least, if there were such a thing - we'd never know it. It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it. Therefore, everything of which we have empirical knowledge has been changed by our knowing of its existence." --Indeed, and I must say I am a bit uplifted by your insightful analysis. I encourage you to continue along these lines.
The notion of an unchanging thing is an approximation. It is an apparent lack of change at our perceptual level. That is the sort of thing A-T apologists do. I address that level of analysis by stating that an unchanging thing does not call for a changer.
The A-T apologist will attempt to argue with a hand, a stick, and a rock. For these gross oversimplifications the A-T apologist goes on to rather shallow and demonstrably false arguments.
But let's consider your point more carefully. Suppose an electron, at this time considered to be a fundamental particle, is traveling in uniform motion and unobserved. Is it changing? Well, changing what? It's mass/energy content is not changing. It's kinetic energy is not changing. So in those respects, at least ideally, the electron is not changing.
Now suppose we wish to observe this electron. As you correctly point out, to observe it we must change it. What sort of change? Suppose we fire another electron at it expecting the fired electron to hit a detector in a particular location if the fired electron travels freely. But the fired electron does not travel freely, rather, it interacts with our previously unobserved electron and is deflected, thus impacting the detector at a different location which indicates something got in the way.
Is this a temporal causal series? The fired electron takes time to travel from the emitter to the observed electron. Since they are both negatively charged their fields begin to interact at some distance apart, and that interaction grows stronger and stronger as they grow nearer. Over time kinetic energy is transferred in a process, much like in a gravity assist trajectory of a spacecraft.
Therefore, this is clearly a temporal process, and thus "accidental".
Every causal series is "accidental". Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to 0, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal.
Thus, no causal series is "essential" in the A-T usage of the term. Only crude approximations and shallow causal analysis lead the A-T apologist to make the gravely mistaken assertion of any "essential" causal series.
Mortal, if you would care to examine such considerations further please read through my above posted series very carefully, and continue to apply your detailed analytical techniques.
If you can identify any errors in those 5 posts of July 26 I would very much appreciate it if you would point them out to me.
" It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out." --I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article
" Thank you for summarizing what I have observed from you."
" You really don't understand nor even care to understand any of the views you think you are criticizing." --You have it back to front. It is precisely because I do understand that I do not much care about the misunderstandings you and Feser express.
When I hear garbled nonsense I understand that it is garbled nonsense and I do not much care about garbled nonsense.
You and Feser express a very great deal of garbled nonsense.
But by all means, please do carefully examine my 5 posts of July 26 and point out whatever errors you can identify.
" Some scientific measuring techniques are, in fact, invasive. However, this is not a fundamental principle nor true of all observations." August 02, 2017 12:03 PM
Another thing I love about self-described skeptics is their childish caricatures of their opponents' viewpoints, rather than engaging them on what the other actually believes and why. It's quite easy to understand why they do this, as the arrogance of self-described skeptics does not permit any allowance of intellectual charity for someone who disagrees with them. Based on its representatives, skepticism seems to be largely defined by immaturity, both intellectual and emotional.
This galaxy is about 13 billion light years from us.
Okay then.
This, the light from 13 billion light years away (and ago) hits the CCD of the telescope, along with many, many other photons from the same source that hit other locations on earth, or that pass us by.
How is the telescope invasive? It is, to the light that strikes it. it DEFINITELY is NOT invasive from the viewpoint of the thing observed through the medium of the photons, that is, the galaxy that sourced that light.
So. All measurements are invasive, but some of these are invasive of the MEDIUM of the observation rather than invasive of the THING WE OBSERVE THROUGH the medium.
So, now that is clarified, you can either sit back, or go on arguing semantics: your choice.
Stardusty: "Yes, I consider critical examination and demands for evidence to be superior to a fantasy of an invisible man who will somehow make a list, check it twice, finding out who's naughty or nice, and send the nice folks to an invisible paradise while sending the naughty folks to eternal torturous agony because he loves them."
" Another thing I love about self-described skeptics is their childish caricatures of their opponents' viewpoints, rather than engaging them on what the other actually believes and why. " --The Christian god is a person, a mind, a being, even for a time literally a man. He is invisible. Therefore, to believe in him is to literally believe in an invisible man.
He does, according to Christian doctrine, keep track of all the thoughts and all the deeds of all the people who have ever lived. He does in fact categorize those thoughts as either acceptable or not acceptable.
He does in fact reward, it is believed, the acceptable ones with heaven and the unacceptable ones with hell.
God is said to love all, so presumably the ones he sends to hell are also loved.
"their childish caricatures" --You have it back to front again. The caricature is accurate. The fact that it sounds childish exposes the childish nature of the Christian beliefs.
" I just demonstrated how you misunderstood the point of the article. I guess you don't understand that either." --No, you claimed, but in your view to make a claim is to make a demonstration.
You have completely failed to show that my statements are incorrect and you have completely failed to show that my comprehensive arguments fail to negate the call for a first mover.
" As for the rest of your incoherent posts here, I've already pointed out their deficiencies at Dr Feser's blog long before you drug them over here." --So, you claim to have negated my series of 5 posts here with some scattered quips over there. Typical theistic misdirection. You fail to provide a comprehensive point by point negation here and just wave your arms about pointing vaguely elsewhere.
I wrote a 3 part critique of a Feser article you have not responded to at all.
Billy did not respond in any meaningful way either. Neither one of you is capable, obviously.
Billy August 1, 2017 at 5:54 AM http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html "You have misunderstood both Aristotelian Thomism, " "and scientific laws themselves." "All I will do is repeat my question, " "and lets hope this gets some gears churning for you:" --That is a typical theistic diversionary tactic. 1.Can't rebut any arguments on the merits. 2.Simply declare "you got it all wrong" 3.Repeat a question already covered. 4.Pretend like you possess some great knowledge you are about to educate me in by asking a question.
I then wrote a much longer piece based on my rebuttal there and various other posts, arguments, and Feser lectures.
Details Here: July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
You have not presented any sound counter arguments to that either, or even attempted to form any logical cohesive step by step rebuttals. You obviously do not know how.
Stardusty: "Therefore, to believe in him is to literally believe in an invisible man."
A man is a human male. God is not a human male. Even Christ is not a human male. Thus, calling God an "invisible man" is flat-out inaccurate. Not that conforming the description of an opponent's views to facts actually matters to a self-described skeptic. Much easier to attack strawmen.
Stardusty: "He does, according to Christian doctrine, keep track of all the thoughts and all the deeds of all the people who have ever lived. He does in fact categorize those thoughts as either acceptable or not acceptable.
He does in fact reward, it is believed, the acceptable ones with heaven and the unacceptable ones with hell."
Well, you have now exposed the shallowness of your knowledge of Christian doctrine.
Stardusty: "The caricature is accurate."
The caricature exposes a profound ignorance as to why people believe in God by the ridiculous comparison to Santa. That's on the same argumentative level as "If men evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" It's facepalm material.
" How is the telescope invasive? " --To make the measurement the object had to change. The telescope did not change the star. Without a change in the star we would not be able to use a telescope to detect it.
The telescope does, however, change the radiation from the star.
" So. All measurements are invasive, but some of these are invasive of the MEDIUM of the observation rather than invasive of the THING WE OBSERVE THROUGH the medium." --The object itself had to change in order to make the measurement. Whether the object changed a nanosecond ago or 10 billion years ago is a quantitative, not qualitative difference.
" It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it. Therefore, everything of which we have empirical knowledge has been changed by our knowing of its existence. August 02, 2017 6:54 AM" --In this Mortal was considering an active human probing, such as when we shine a light on something to see it.
More generally all observations require that an object was changed. So, to generalize, it is not that our knowing of it caused the change, rather, for us to know about it some change must have occurred.
" I just demonstrated how you misunderstood the point of the article. I guess you don't understand that either." --No, you claimed, but in your view to make a claim is to make a demonstration.
Clearly I'm correct that you didn't understand and don't care. After I showed you what the point of the argument was and how your analysis was wrong, you merely replied: "--I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article,
As for your claim that I did not respond to the nonsense you drug over from Dr Feser's blog, that is simply false. You didn't choose to respond and make corrections over there, so I don't expect anything different here.
Regarding your posts to Billy, I agree with him that you don't understand what you think you are criticizing, as you've shown here wrt inertia being a "state" (which btw was from that series of posts).
While I didn't insert myself into your dialog with Billy, I did address your notion of conservation laws wrt to modern physics. It's clear that you don't understand Noether's theorem or reject it since you claimed it was: "--No, that is just a setup for your tautology."
Seems you think Aquinas and Noether are conspiring against you. ☺
Dusty: More generally all observations require that an object was changed. So, to generalize, it is not that our knowing of it caused the change, rather, for us to know about it some change must have occurred. -------------------------------- Well, yes, sort of.
A galaxy makes its light. Not everything makes its own light.
To personally make an observation, we need to activate some sensory pathway, and our sensory pathways work via changes at their receptor interfaces.
But what we are studying may not be the thing that changes. For example, we may monitor a light beam through something transparent. We may record that it is still transparent -- this is an observation -- by recording that the beam of light still passes through it the same way. This, again, shows that sometimes the changes that are required for us to make an observation are not ALWAYS a change in the thing we are actually studying. Sometimes all the changes are in the MEDIUM via which we observe.
so, to change slightly what you said:
For us to know about it some change must have occurred (in at least something related).
" This, again, shows that sometimes the changes that are required for us to make an observation are not ALWAYS a change in the thing we are actually studying." August 03, 2017 7:44 PM
--Nope, sorry, I wish you were correct, but your are wrong. A very great many hours have been spent trying to figure out a way around the Observer Effect. Elaborate schemes of coherent or entangled particles and observation of one without affecting the the have been considered.
But, as it turns out, observing a thing necessarily requires a change in the thing being observed.
You can start here if you wish to: Observer effect (physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29
Stardusty: "Therefore, to believe in him is to literally believe in an invisible man."
" A man is a human male." --Not when its a god man. Your god man talks to people like a man, thinks like a man, gets jealous like a man, kills like a man, made a baby with a woman...if it walks like a duck...
SP He does in fact reward, it is believed, the acceptable ones with heaven and the unacceptable ones with hell."
" Well, you have now exposed the shallowness of your knowledge of Christian doctrine." --How? That is just what he is said to do. If you find that difficult to accept then you should find Christianity difficult to accept.
Stardusty: "The caricature is accurate."
" The caricature exposes a profound ignorance as to why people believe in God by the ridiculous comparison to Santa." --There's this guy, dontchyaknow, who nobody can see, but he knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good so for Christsakes already be good!!!
This guy, the one nobody can see, is keeping track of things. If you do the right things you will get good things from this invisible guy, but if you do the wrong things you will get crummy things from this guy.
God/Santa...which? The description fits both.
Santa is nicer though. God is a killer and a torturer. Santa just gives you a lump of coal.
" Regarding your posts to Billy, I agree with him that you don't understand what you think you are criticizing," --Ha Ha Ha. What a pathetic excuse for lack of logical argumentation..
Sure, and the napkin holder in front of me is a napkin holder man, so it is also a man just like me. It is accurate to call it a man, because I said so.
Or, we can acknowledge how absurd "god man" is, and admit that it is factually incorrect to call God a man.
Oh yes, I forgot. Self-described skeptics do not admit when they are wrong, perhaps are not even capable of acknowledging being wrong, unless it is a misquote.
Dusty: As long as you are using Wikipedia as a source (and I will be charitable and assume you more or less understand the references), try to understand how separable states can be related to the observer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entanglement_witness
Consider what happens when the object is separable until it changes, at which point it becomes temporarily entangled with the medium of observation. In this situation we can observe a lack of change in the object via the entanglement witness matrix of the medium, with lack of change in the object indicated by the state of the entanglement matrix remaining strictly in the separable range.
--Ha Ha Ha. What a pathetic excuse for lack of logical argumentation..
Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses (even the ones in my last post). I do find that amusing.
But I really like it when you try to engage. Then we get to hear how water does not have the potential to freeze and how present tense really means past tense and how I wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles.
Your Santa to God analogy has the cart before the horse. We don't believe in God because He resembles Santa. The Santa story came about as an analogy to God. Quite the reverse of your take on the matter.
So the existence of the Santa myth is actually evidence for the existence of God.
" The Santa story came about as an analogy to God." --Right, they are highly analogous and contain many of the same elements. That is my point, glad you agree.
" So the existence of the Santa myth is actually evidence for the existence of God." --Deriving one myth from another myth provides no evidence for the first myth. What kind of reasoning is that? I had high hopes you would begin to apply careful rational examination, but your are having a relapse to irrationality here.
The god story and the Santa story are very similar, except Santa is much kinder, with god being a vicious torturer.
" Or, we can acknowledge how absurd "god man" is, and admit that it is factually incorrect to call God a man." --Perhaps in your mind you have moved away from the personification of god, but gods have traditionally been men, or sometimes women, or even animals.
In Christian artwork god is depicted as a man, and thought of as a man very commonly. Jesus often spoke of his father. God made Adam in his image. One may go to heaven and sit at the right hand of god.
The imagination of god as a man in heaven is widespread among Christians and goes back to the days of the Greeks and Romans who had many personified gods.
" In this situation we can observe a lack of change in the object via the entanglement witness matrix of the medium, with lack of change in the object indicated by the state of the entanglement matrix remaining strictly in the separable range." August 04, 2017 2:54 AM
--Wow, your copy and paste skill make you seem really super smart.
Stardusty: "Perhaps in your mind you have moved away from the personification of god"
By definition, the object of personification is not human, thus is neither a man nor a woman. If God is being personified, it means he's not a man.
Stardusty: "The imagination of god as a man in heaven is widespread among Christians and goes back to the days of the Greeks and Romans who had many personified gods."
And the Bible flat out says that God is not a man, but a spirit. Any Christian who thinks of God as a man is not correct, as a man is a human male and not a spirit. God is not a human male, by definition, and to say otherwise is to be incorrect. Even Christ is not a human male, no matter what the artwork depicts, as he (currently) has a physical nature different than any human male.
This is a good example of one of the reasons I shake my head any time a self-described skeptic asks for my evidence or arguments for God. The futility is overwhelming, no matter the situation. If the simple fact that God is not a human male is too difficult a concept to comprehend, then the self-described skeptic has no hope of comprehending the arguments for God.
If the self-described skeptic is psychologically incapable of recognizing or admitting being wrong over something as obvious (and relatively trivial) as God not being a human male, then he will also be incapable of rationally analyzing an argument for which he has already staked an emotional position against.
And finally, if the self-described skeptic is well aware of the inaccuracy of his caricature yet insists upon using it anyway for whatever reason, then he is not mature enough to engage as an adult.
" Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses " --What responses? You through out a few offhand quips here and there.
I read an article by Feser and I wrote a 3 post critique of it with extensive logical argumentation. Neither you or Billy replied with any rational counter arguments. Billy just said "you got it all wrong" and you just said "I agree with Billy".
So I took that post, and a lot of other material and wrote a 5 post argument against an ontological first mover and negating the very idea of an "essential" causal series. Again, no rational response from you or anybody else.
So then I wrote a list of points made in the 5 post series. One poster claimed a few of the items in the summary list are wrong, so I provided specific links to the supporting arguments.
" And the Bible flat out says that God is not a man," --Grab bag theology. The bible also says God the father, the right hand of god, man in god's image, and numerous such references to god as a sort of man.
The bible, of course, is not one book. It is a collection of books and letters written over some 1500 years by many different authors.
Dig around enough and you find find a quote to support damn near anything.
" fact that God is not a human male " --Of course not. An invisible man is a special sort of man.
" And finally, if the self-described skeptic is well aware of the inaccuracy of his caricature" --My caricatures are highly accurate and shed light on the childish nature of belief in the Christian god.
The run-to shelter for a self-described skeptic when he is soundly refuted. I'm calling you on it, though. Nowhere is God called a man. You are wrong and refuse to admit it, which is pathetic.
Stardusty: "as a sort of man"
Is this the beginning of a shifting of goal posts to try and avoid the admission of being wrong? A "sort of man" is not a man.
Stardusty: "Dig around enough and you find find a quote to support damn near anything."
Except, ironically, that God is a man.
Stardusty: "An invisible man is a special sort of man."
Indeed. And God is not one, for anyone who cares about accuracy, which you claim to do elsewhere yet prove otherwise here.
Stardusty: "My caricatures are highly accurate and shed light on the childish nature of belief in the Christian god."
I have proven, with no effort, that your caricature is a childish and inaccurate misrepresentation of God, who is not childish. That you keep attempting to escape the ridiculous corner you've backed yourself into is doing yourself no favors.
God is not a man. To state otherwise is factually wrong.
" The run-to shelter for a self-described skeptic when he is soundly refuted. I'm calling you on it, though. Nowhere is God called a man." --A father is a man. A man has a right hand. A man has a son.
Most especially we refer to a man using "he" as opposed to "it" or "she".
Stardusty: "as a sort of man"
" Is this the beginning of a shifting of goal posts to try and avoid the admission of being wrong? A "sort of man" is not a man." --He is a sort of man in the sense of a particular kind of man, an invisible man. Obviously, an invisible man is going to have many magical qualities not like the ordinary men we meet regularly.
I can prove god is a man, just take a look, here is a picture of him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel#/media/File:Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1m.jpg
" The only copy paste was the reference. Google with quotes if you doubt this." August 04, 2017 11:01 AM
That's a relief then, so now I am sure you realize that when an object emits a photon, or any other form of matter/energy, it changes. When we try to bounce something off of something else we end up changing the thing we are trying to measure. When we absorb something in a detector so we can observe it that absorption changes the thing we are seeking to detect.
But on another subject, would you consider doing me a favor and visiting a series of posts to detect any errors in them? If you can elaborate on any flaws you find I will be forever in your debt. Unfortunately nobody here has been able to do so at all. Summarized here: https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Details Here: July 26, 2017 11:32 PM July 26, 2017 11:33 PM July 26, 2017 11:34 PM July 26, 2017 11:38 PM July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
1. I agree with you that Aquinas' use of ancient Greek physics really undermines the Way arguments when read from the background of 21st century physics.
They still hold up somewhat if we extract the baby from the archaic bathwater though. One problem that you share with Aquinas in those arguments is you both make unwarranted (in my view) realist assumptions about your physics, though with different physics.
Theorizing about the world, in general, does not prove the entities entailed by our theories exist. Our theories can be wrong. Many of Aristotle's were. Yours and mine may well be.
2. God certainly can change in one sense but not in another. I doubt you can prove much by finding a contradiction based on semantic assumptions about the meaning of change in one context versus another.
Stardusty: "A father is a man. A man has a right hand. A man has a son"
Even ignoring how any male parent of any species is technically a father, not every use of father refers to biological male parents (Father is also used to indicate the originator or the creator of something, much like the Founding Fathers of the country are not biologically related to America). Not everything that has a right hand is a man, either.
Stardusty: "Most especially we refer to a man using "he" as opposed to "it" or "she"."
And a boat being referred to as "she" does not make the boat a woman. My cat's a male and is referred to as "he", but 'tain't a man.
Stardusty: "He is a sort of man in the sense of a particular kind of man, an invisible man. Obviously, an invisible man is going to have many magical qualities not like the ordinary men we meet regularly."
An invisible man would be a man (human male) with the added quality of being invisible. God does not meet this definition, as 1) if God walked in my house, I'm pretty sure I'd notice, and 2) God is not a human male. "Invisible man" is a thoughtless caricature.
Stardusty: "I can prove god is a man, just take a look, here is a picture of him:"
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an attempt at humor or an attempt at mockery, since it doesn't qualify as an argument, so I'm not going to respond directly.
"One problem that you share with Aquinas in those arguments is you both make unwarranted (in my view) realist assumptions about your physics, though with different physics."
Aquinas First Way is a metaphysical demonstration; it does not use (or can be cleaned of) any principle that is recognizably a principle of physics.
From this it follows that your understanding of the First Way is different than mine, so what are these principles that Aquinas allegedly uses?
" Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses " --What responses? You through out a few offhand quips here and there.
Shame on you. You simply ignore what you can't respond to. Here was my quote you truncated: Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses (even the ones in my last post). I do find that amusing. You chose not to respond to the 4 issues raised in that post. How funny.
Unfortunately nobody here has been able to do so at all. Shame on you again. They've all been addressed and you've ignored the responses.
(I apologize to Victor for this off-topic response. I wish Strawdusty would keep his comments topical and stick to one blog, but he chose not to.)
Unfortunately the responses cover 2 blogs. I'll indicate which ones with EF for Edward Feser's blog and VR for Victor Reppert's blog as shown below.
EF=https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html VR=https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=1 (page 1-11 and counting)
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM Strawdusty's definitions of accidentally ordered and essentially ordered series are not Thomist, but instead a product of Strawdusty's confusion. "Ontological first mover" also your invention and illustrates your confusion first invented July 13, 2017 at 10:15 PM Therefore a strawman has been constructed
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM cue ball and lungs Answered in depth here: EF-July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM Simultaneity addressed here: VR-July 09, 2017 8:01 PM And here: VR-July 25, 2017 2:28 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM No Change needing a changer addressed here: EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM Gas molecules and series addressed here: VR-July 09, 2017 4:39 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM VR-All items listed were addressed ad nauseum throughout 2300+ posts.
" My cat's a male and is referred to as "he", but 'tain't a man." --Ok, what sort of male animal is god then?
" Stardusty: "I can prove god is a man, just take a look, here is a picture of him:"
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an attempt at humor or an attempt at mockery, since it doesn't qualify as an argument, so I'm not going to respond directly. --How unfortunate. SP "So you make up a lot of elaborate hide and go seek fantasies about the invisible man who is going to make you live forever in paradise but is nowhere to be seen here and now." July 29, 2017 10:44 PM
The invisible man is a fantasy. That fantasy has been rendered by artists for centuries. The ancients believed in many such men, never visible, but imagined to be real nevertheless.
Like fantasies in general, it does not have to make analytical sense. Perhaps you refer to god as "it" by consideration of a more diffuse view of god for yourself.
"The prime mover discussion is in Aristotle's physics, not his metaphysics. That's all I am saying."
Aristotle's book pf Physics is for the most part, what we today call metaphysics, having very little in common with anything resembling modern physics.
Anyway, if that is all you mean, there is nothing for me to add, whether in agreement or disagreement.
1. I agree with you that Aquinas' use of ancient Greek physics really undermines the Way arguments when read from the background of 21st century physics. --Thus, the First Way is an invalid and unsound argument in light of 21st century knowledge.
" They still hold up somewhat if we extract the baby from the archaic bathwater though. One problem that you share with Aquinas in those arguments is you both make unwarranted (in my view) realist assumptions about your physics, though with different physics." --So, perhaps I am god and you are just a figment of my divine imagination. I do not plan to hold my breath on the notion that air is not real.
" Theorizing about the world, in general, does not prove the entities entailed by our theories exist. Our theories can be wrong. Many of Aristotle's were. Yours and mine may well be." --Indeed, Aquinas did not solve the great existential riddle. Nobody has.
" 2. God certainly can change in one sense but not in another. I doubt you can prove much by finding a contradiction based on semantic assumptions about the meaning of change in one context versus another." August 04, 2017 12:03 PM --I can logically prove that the arguments of Aquinas are logically invalid, as well as being unsound for several more reasons.
I cannot prove how or why all of existence came to be as it is. Nobody ever has and published such a proof into general circulation.
I am not here to assert I have the answer to the great existential riddle. I am here to conclusively logically prove that Aquinas did not provide such an answer.
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM Strawdusty's definitions of accidentally ordered and essentially ordered series are not Thomist, but instead a product of Strawdusty's confusion. "Ontological first mover" also your invention and illustrates your confusion August 04, 2017 12:48 PM --Typical non-response. All say here is "you're wrong". My definitions come from a variety of sources including Feser, the OP, and others. You are incapable of pointing out on this thread or any other thread what specifically is both right and wrong about my definitions in Thomistic terms and the associated modern terms I used I used in conjunction.
If you can't even argue with any specificity on the definitions of the terms there is no hope your further comments are of any rational merit.
Stardusty: "Ok, what sort of male animal is god then?"
" As this question doesn't logically proceed from anything that's been said, I admit to some confusion as to its presence." --You cited your male cat as an example of the use of the masculine pronoun in reference to something other than a man. True, it can be applied to other animals that are of the male sex. So, what sort of animal of the male sex is "He"?
Stardusty: "The invisible man is a fantasy."
" On that we agree, though of course God is not an invisible man and to reduce him to that is inept." --Ok, Michelangelo, and all those who's mental image of god he rendered, was and are inept. Rationally, on the subject of god, at last we agree.
Stardusty: "True, it can be applied to other animals that are of the male sex. So, what sort of animal of the male sex is "He"?"
What species is a ship, which is often referred to as "she"?
God is neither man nor animal. "Father" is apt due to being the creator, being the head of the godhood, and as symbolic of the relationship between God and man. It does not mean God is a man. I'm surprised you're digging your heels in on something about which you are so obviously incorrect, and it's such a relatively trivial point to begin with.
Stardusty: "Ok, Michelangelo, and all those who's mental image of god he rendered, was and are inept. Rationally, on the subject of god, at last we agree."
A couple things. One, I couldn't care less what Michelangelo or those who commissioned his work thought God looked like.
And two, when I look at his paintings, I can see the figure representing God. He isn't invisible, so he STILL isn't an invisible man. Only in the strawman representations of self-described skeptics is "invisible man" a common description of God. And they haven't proven to be much of an authority on the subject.
" A couple things. One, I couldn't care less what Michelangelo or those who commissioned his work thought God looked like." --Well, if you only want to consider your own concept of god, ok, you can do that. It seems like a rather narrow approach. I, for one, have no intention of limiting my comments to your particular concept of god.
My comments will be more or less applicable to various people depending on the form they imagine god to have, if any.
" And two, when I look at his paintings, I can see the figure representing God. He isn't invisible, so he STILL isn't an invisible man. " --Besides being invisible he is also magic, dontchyaknow. He magically makes himself visible on special occasions, but most of the time he is invisible.
"Only in the strawman representations of self-described skeptics is "invisible man" a common description of God." --No, actually people have thought of gods as men for a very long time. Some cultures think these god men come to Earth and do things like have sex with Earth women to make god babies.
Some people even today think god is a man, this man or that man, like David Koresh, Sathya Sai Baba, and a seemingly unlimited string of such god men, such as in India where that is literally what they are called, god men.
Part of this notion of god as a man starts at childhood with the artwork and iconography of god as a man so prevalent in Christianity. I very much grew up with an idea of god as a man, based on the language of the stories that were told to me and the images that were said to be of god. Everybody was always telling stories about him, how he appeared to people, had conversations with people, how he is a father, how he is a he. Naturally I thought of god as a man, what else is a child to think with all that going on?
But the very idea of a god at all is fundamentally childish so I rejected all forms of theism when I became old enough to think for myself.
Just try calling god "she" to a bunch of Christians, I mean, fireworks time. Now, objectively, if "he" is just a placeholder pronoun "she" should do just as well. No dice, nope, not gonna fly. God is a man and "everybody" knows it.
Stardusty: "Besides being invisible he is also magic, dontchyaknow. He magically makes himself visible on special occasions, but most of the time he is invisible."
My choices are to deal with whatever you make up, which while amusing is hardly worthwhile, or to abandon this discussion as yet another pointless interaction of no substance with a self-described skeptic.
"Most of the time he is invisible", you literally made that up.
Stardusty: "No, actually people have thought of gods as men for a very long time."
We are having separate conversations, as other gods are utterly irrelevant.
Stardusty: "I very much grew up with an idea of god as a man, based on the language of the stories that were told to me and the images that were said to be of god."
I have never, at any point in my life, had God described to me as a man. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the nature of man is not the nature of God. Maybe your upbringing is why you have such radically different conceptions of God than I do.
Stardusty: "But the very idea of a god at all is fundamentally childish"
Bravo.
Stardusty: "Just try calling god "she" to a bunch of Christians, I mean, fireworks time."
And I've seriously ticked off some atheists and been called an arrogant bastard by asking why I should care about the opinion of a bunch of apes. Presentation has a lot to do with the reaction, as presumably none of them would otherwise deny being apes according to biological classification.
God is called the Father, which is a masculine connotation. Given that God is never implied to be a biological entity, he is obviously neither man nor animal as we know them, but all of tradition and all references use "Father" and not "Mother". Christ was a man, not a woman.
So really, the only reason to say "she" when referring to God is to stir crap up, and it's no surprise that it works. "She is the Father" makes the speaker sound like an idiot, but a quick "she" thrown in without Father is a good troll technique.
I need to apologize to Stardusty. I just learned (the hard way) that my Google Chromebook does have function keys. I accidentally turned my screen display into a negative by pressing shift/H/and the key above shift (instead of just shift/H), and had to call Google support to find out how to turn it back to normal. The (very helpful) support rep explained to me that there were all sorts of hidden function keys on my keyboard. They're just not labeled like they are on "normal" keyboards.
" And I've seriously ticked off some atheists and been called an arrogant bastard by asking why I should care about the opinion of a bunch of apes" --Heh, heh, heh :-) That's a good one, you should use that more often!
You need to hang out with a better class of atheist, those ones are acting like a bunch of gorillas!
" So really, the only reason to say "she" when referring to God is to stir crap up, and it's no surprise that it works." --See what I mean? "Everybody" knows god is a man. Anybody who refers to him as a woman is just a troublemaker!
" "She is the Father" makes the speaker sound like an idiot," --Fine, then say "she is the mother", same same, right?
" but a quick "she" thrown in without Father is a good troll technique." --Referring to the Christian god as "she" exposes the fact that Christians are not sex neutral about their god as they claim. Christians strongly associate god with the male sex. If they did not they would just as easily accept reference to god as a mother, but they don't. The sex prejudice of the average Christian is so strong that to even suggest their god is actually a she makes one a "troll" even in the view of a supposedly god sex neutral Christian.
" I need to apologize to Stardusty. I just learned (the hard way) that my Google Chromebook does have function keys. I repent in dust and ashes." August 05, 2017 5:45 AM
--Not good enough, you have to do 25 Hail Dawkinses plus perform a burnt offering, to the not god of nothing, of a Quran.
Besides, it was the control key, Ctrl, that I kept talking about, not the function keys.
Too lazy to look up more examples, but check out Isaiah 66:13 and Luke 13:34.
But perhaps the most striking example is Ecclesiasticus 24:24 (which you won't find in Protestant Bibles). This is God Himself speaking: "I am the mother of beautiful love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope."
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM Strawdusty's definitions of accidentally ordered and essentially ordered series are not Thomist, but instead a product of Strawdusty's confusion. "Ontological first mover" also your invention and illustrates your confusion August 04, 2017 12:48 PM --Besides being non-responsive about the definitions of "essential" series and "accidental" series you are also wrong in your vague criticism of my definition of "ontological cause"
You are so enamored of Edward Feser (not to be confused with Edwards, the surname of a critic), so here is something he wrote on the subject: "Edwards does realize that Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all." http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
Clearly Feser is calling the first mover of the First Way the first cause, in what Feser says is not the temporal sense, rather, Feser says in the ontological sense.
Thus by the words of your own preferred expert, the first mover of the First Way is an ontological cause, a sustaining cause of the world here and now in this moment.
But I have no intention of taking Feser as a sole source. I did some research into the word "essential" regarding its similarity to "essence", as well as its common meaning in the sense of necessary. Ontology in general refers to being, which explains why Feser would call a cause of being an ontological cause, while others call the causal series of the First Way an "essential" causal series in the Thomistic sense, in which simultaneity of causes and effects are imagined.
So here is what I said: **An ontological cause, in this sense, is also essential in the sense of regarding the essence, or being. Thus, an ontological cause is a sustaining cause, a cause for the very existence in each moment of the object and of the effect, without which the effect would cease to exist and the object would cease to exist.**
Yet your response is to call my words merely "your invention and illustrates your confusion".
So by all means, please do explain in specific detail just exactly what I have "invented" and where and how and why I am so "confused".
" Too lazy to look up more examples, but check out Isaiah 66:13 and Luke 13:34.
But perhaps the most striking example is Ecclesiasticus 24:24 (which you won't find in Protestant Bibles). This is God Himself speaking: "I am the mother of beautiful love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope."" August 05, 2017 7:03 AM
--So god is gender fluid. That's not just a regressive left snowflake boys in the girls room talking point after all!
So by all means, please do explain in specific detail just exactly what I have "invented" and where and how and why I am so "confused".
You did not quote anyone using the term "Ontological first mover" since that is your invention. You confuse the fact that material things exist as a combination of form and matter with the fact that they are sometimes in local motion. The First Way derives the Unmoved Mover from the fact that we observe at least one thing moving. Any movement happening now will ultimately be traced to the Unmoved Mover.
But this was all explained here: EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
Now a material object may be perceived to be in motion or not. If it is perceived to be in motion, then the cause of that motion will terminate with the Unmoved Mover. If it is not perceived to be in motion, then it is outside of the scope of the First Way. In both cases however, there must be an explanation of how material things came into being as a combination of form and matter, continue to exist in that combination and pass away. So in both cases, an ontological cause is needed.
Regarding your quote from the Feser blog post and your definitions. It seems you entirely missed the point of it all since you address simultaneity and temporal aspects rather than the instrumental character of an essentially ordered series.
What way too many people fail to understand is that creation was not a one time event that happened at some point in the past. It is a continuous process, ongoing at all times and in all places. St. Paul expressed this eloquently: "In [Christ] all things were created ... He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (note the present tense in the final clause)
The author of Hebrews wrote much the same thing: "In these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, ... through whom he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power." (again, the present tense)
So by all means, please do explain in specific detail just exactly what I have "invented" and where and how and why I am so "confused".
" You did not quote anyone using the term "Ontological first mover" " --You don't follow simple logic very well, do you? I told you how that term is accurate. Did you intentionally ignore or are you daft?
The First Way asserts a first mover. Feser and others assert this is first not in the temporal sense, rather in the ontological sense. On that assertion then the First Way is asserting an ontological first mover.
Worse for your carefully honed misreading skills, the term "ontological first mover" does not appear in my definition of ontological cause.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting my words or are you just that bad at reading and reasoning?
" But this was all explained here: EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM"
" Now a material object may be perceived to be in motion or not. If it is perceived to be in motion, then the cause of that motion will terminate with the Unmoved Mover. If it is not perceived to be in motion, then it is outside of the scope of the First Way. In both cases however, there must be an explanation of how material things came into being as a combination of form and matter, continue to exist in that combination and pass away. So in both cases, an ontological cause is needed." --Rarely have I seen such a mass of confusion, but then, that is your forte.
If we are considering the existence of the stuff an object is made of there is no need to arrive at a first mover on the assertion of an eternal universe, which both Aristotle and Aquinas acknowledged could not be logically disproved.
If we are considering the forces behind the shape of the object there is a need to arrive at a fundamental physics, the fundamental properties of the most fundamental sorts of stuff. This is not a mover, because a mover is a changer, whereas a force does not necessarily change anything, and on no change there is no call for first changer. Further, there is no reason to suppose these forces need be not natural in origin on an eternal universe.
If we are considering the motion of an object the cause of the motion is necessarily temporal, which need not lead to a temporal first mover on an eternal universe, and in any case is irrelevant to an ontological first cause, or ontological cause, or ontological first mover.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the notion that motion somehow leads to the conclusion of a first structural force set, what you rather archaically refer to as "form". To argue for a first form force, motion is irrelevant and demonstrates nothing one way or the other.
It is a truly bizarre mental process that argues beginning with apparent motion, calls that change, and from there concludes fundamental structural forces based on form. That is simply a cognitive disconnect on your part.
The First Way is an argument from motion, not an argument from form.
If Aquinas had wanted to argue from form he could have said "The first and more manifest way is the argument from form. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things have form."
You are just trying a conflated, bait and switch, confused jumble of disjointed notions.
" Regarding your quote from the Feser blog post and your definitions. It seems you entirely missed the point of it all since you address simultaneity and temporal aspects rather than the instrumental character of an essentially ordered series." --Lie. The word instrumental is in my definition and I address it further in that series.
" But why plug up this combox with this off-topic stuff? " --Post wherever you prefer, nobody is stopping you.
" What way too many people fail to understand is that creation was not a one time event that happened at some point in the past. It is a continuous process, ongoing at all times and in all places. " August 05, 2017 11:56 AM
So what is being created? I'm sitting here and I don't see any new stuff popping up. What a strange notion, that things are being continuously created.
" You did not quote anyone using the term "Ontological first mover" " --You don't follow simple logic very well, do you? I told you how that term is accurate. Did you intentionally ignore or are you daft?
And I disagreed that it was accurate because the term demonstrates your conflation of ontology with motion. If you read and understood my reply you would see why I disagreed.
Worse for your carefully honed misreading skills, the term "ontological first mover" does not appear in my definition of ontological cause.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting my words or are you just that bad at reading and reasoning?
I did not say it was part of your definition. I said the term was your invention. You used it July 26, 2017 11:38 PM. Please read my responses more carefully.
--Rarely have I seen such a mass of confusion, but then, that is your forte.
....
If Aquinas had wanted to argue from form he could have said "The first and more manifest way is the argument from form. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things have form."
You are just trying a conflated, bait and switch, confused jumble of disjointed notions.
I'm sorry that you don't take my advice to read the links I provide for you. The very first comment from the "David Haines' Defense of Aquinas' First Way" (January 21, 2017 6:45 PM) post contains a link to the Summa Contra Gentiles. There are about 37 almost single sentence sections that explain what I summarized here. One more time, the link is HERE.
Will you actually read it now? Probably not. But then don't complain that you can't understand what I'm talking about.
Regardless, I've already addressed the argument you attempt to use to disprove the First Way here: EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
This seems to be the gist of your argument: 1) Things that don't change do not require a changer. 2) Some things do not change. 3) Therefore there is no need of an ultimate Unchanged Changer.
Here was my reply: 1) The First Way does not address things that don't change. The first premise only requires the observation that something is changing and that could be only 1 thing. So the fact that some things do not change is irrelevant to the argument. 2) So in order to defeat the First Way, it must be demonstrated that nothing is moving or has ever moved. 3) But even if that could be demonstrated (per impossible since demonstration would be change) the question of "why are there things?", the ontological cause, could still be asked and still would still lead to God.
" Regarding your quote from the Feser blog post and your definitions. It seems you entirely missed the point of it all since you address simultaneity and temporal aspects rather than the instrumental character of an essentially ordered series." --Lie. The word instrumental is in my definition and I address it further in that series.
You used the word twice in the July 26, 2017 11:32 PM post and never again. None of your agrumentation focused on mere instrumentality of the movers in the series at all.
This was your incorrect definition:
Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous.
This was the quote from Dr Feser I just linked to: So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first.
So you can see that your definition is simply wrong. It is wrong because you added the following "as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous." to "instrumental". The entire point of that blog post was to show that fact.
SP Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous.
This was the quote from Dr Feser I just linked to: So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first.
"So you can see that your definition is simply wrong. It is wrong because you added the following "as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous." to "instrumental". " --How stupid.
Feser says in the very words you quoted "their simultaneity". So Feser says an aspect of an "essential" series is simultaneity, therefore an "essential" series is, according to Feser, viewed as having simultaneity, as well as an instrumental character, which is what I said in my definition.
Feser says in the very words you quoted "their simultaneity". So Feser says an aspect of an "essential" series is simultaneity, therefore an "essential" series is, according to Feser, viewed as having simultaneity, as well as an instrumental character, which is what I said in my definition.
Learn how to read.
How funny. He actually said "not their simultaneity". The actual opposite of what you claim.
In fact the very next paragraph he goes on to give an example where simultaneity is not essential (heh) for an essentially ordered series.
But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous.
I know metaphysics is difficult, but come on...reading an article and concluding the point was the opposite of what the author intended? No wonder you're so confused.
" How funny. He actually said "not their simultaneity". The actual opposite of what you claim." --You are an idiot.
By saying "not their simultaneity" Feser is stating that a characteristic of an "essential" series is simultaneity but in his opinion that characteristic is not the key factor to consider in his analysis.
By saying "not their simultaneity" Feser is stating that a characteristic of an "essential" series is simultaneity but in his opinion that characteristic is not the key factor to consider in his analysis.
No, he is stating that simultaneity is not necessary for an essentially ordered series. It's not that it *"is not the key factor to consider in his analysis."*.
Please read *all* of my reply. Since you apparently did not see it last post, I'll put it in bold this time.
"In fact the very next paragraph he goes on to give an example where simultaneity is not essential (heh) for an essentially ordered series.
But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous."
148 comments:
"Swinburne uses the example of a rocket ship. As the statistics will bear out, the science behind launching projectiles and people into space always has a chance at being wrong."
--This is "the" Christian philosopher? I am not surprised.
Earth to Swinburne, your god isn't like rocket ship. We have launched lots of rockets. Millions of people have seen them launch. We have lots of physical evidence about rocket ships and a lot of people have ridden in them. Rockets are well defined, mathematically modeled, and small versions can be purchased and launched by anybody.
There are no video tapes of god, math of god, or any physical trace of god. Your god is a figment of your imagination. You can't produce any physical evidence for your god because it doesn't exist. So you make up a lot of elaborate hide and go seek fantasies about the invisible man who is going to make you live forever in paradise but is nowhere to be seen here and now.
"I’m simply saying that we honestly consider the evidence. "
--There isn't any beyond wishful fantasies and vague feelings.
Have you Christians ever asked yourselves why your invisible man is invisible if he is so real and central to all reality, while even the most mundane of realities is so starkly in your face and seen by all?
The rocket analogy is indeed awkward at best, but the point he is making is absolute certainty vs reasonable to accept as trustworthy. Probability that a belief is true, in other words.
That Christianity is more likely to be true than atheism is fairly obvious, as in so many years of seeing atheists' objections and attempts at rebuttal, all have been failures, with only a handful being worthy of deeper consideration. Such a consistent degree of bad arguments is quite significant indeed.
Now, it's possible that the problem is in the messengers and not the message. Perhaps atheism is more reasonable a position to hold than the messengers are able to articulate. So I would encourage them to keep at it, as they will either refine the arguments or will realize they don't hold water, as I have concluded.
Stardusty, your objections are painfully shallow and suggest a complete ignorance of our actual beliefs and their basis. I'd read less Sam Harris if I was you, and go find some actual thinkers to try out. Your sources are doing you no favors.
Have you Christians ever asked yourselves why your invisible man is invisible if he is so real and central to all reality, while even the most mundane of realities is so starkly in your face and seen by all?
Yes, we have.
The answer is simple. God is the Creator - not creation. Anything that you "see" in the universe will of necessity be part of that universe, and not the Maker of it. We cannot "see" God unless He shows Himself to us.
Now we can reason our way to God, as Saint Paul says ("Ever since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.") But note that even Paul notes that these things are "invisible", in the same way that a person's character traits are invisible, but can be inferred by observing his actions. In the same way, we can infer God's nature by observing His creation.
Legion of Logic said...
" The rocket analogy is indeed awkward at best, but the point he is making is absolute certainty vs reasonable to accept as trustworthy. Probability that a belief is true, in other words."
--Probability based on what evidence? There is no physical evidence for god. Where? What?
" That Christianity is more likely to be true than atheism is fairly obvious, as in so many years of seeing atheists' objections and attempts at rebuttal, all have been failures,"
--Interesting. Nobody has been able to raise a single objection to
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
beyond "You really are confused. Go read a book." In the face of careful rational analysis that is all a theist is capable of, apparently.
" with only a handful being worthy of deeper consideration."
--There are no sound arguments for god, none whatsoever. There never have been. The ancient arguments are particularly bad, and the modern ones fall apart quickly as well.
" Such a consistent degree of bad arguments is quite significant indeed."
--You're talking about the First Way, correct?
" Now, it's possible that the problem is in the messengers and not the message. Perhaps atheism is more reasonable a position to hold than the messengers are able to articulate."
--The problem is on the receiving end. Most theists cling to their irrationalities and no amount of rational argument can appeal to a person who is thinking irrationally.
" So I would encourage them to keep at it, as they will either refine the arguments or will realize they don't hold water, as I have concluded."
--No, you have not concluded that. You have made a lot of progress in your life away from some of the more absurd assertions of Christianity, so it is I who encourage you to continue your journey toward rationality.
" Stardusty, your objections are painfully shallow and suggest a complete ignorance of our actual beliefs and their basis."
--Interesting, please point out how shallow the referenced analysis is for
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
" I'd read less Sam Harris if I was you,"
--Yes, I realize that.
" and go find some actual thinkers to try out. "
--That would be me. I rejected Christianity and all theism when I became old enough to think for myself
"Your sources are doing you no favors."
--What do you know of my sources?
July 30, 2017 12:30 AM
LL and Mortal please email I need to talk to you about something. Metacrock@gmail.com
Mortal said...
" We cannot "see" God unless He shows Himself to us."
--How convenient. The most powerful force in existence is invisible and in principle impossible to see unless it decides to remove its invisibility cloak.
" But note that even Paul notes that these things are "invisible","
--Of course. If one is going to peddle an invisible man story it won't do to pretend he is visible when he obviously is not. One must claim that all the things we see somehow indicate this invisible man is real, and one must concoct some poetic language to make this story sound exalted.
" in the same way that a person's character traits are invisible, but can be inferred by observing his actions. In the same way, we can infer God's nature by observing His creation."
--But I can see a person.
On your sort of "evidence" for god one can simply make up any speculative set of imagined beings and say they created our world, then point to our world and say "see, it was those magic pixies I told you about, of course magic pixies are real, I told you magic pixies created the world, and just look at how real and wonderful our world is, so obviously magic pixies are real, and you can know all about the nature of magic pixies by observing the properties of the creation of magic pixies which is this wonderful world".
July 30, 2017 4:42 AM
That would be me. I rejected Christianity and all theism when I became old enough to think for myself
your a thinker hu? a thinker who thinks this:
Earth to Swinburne, your god isn't like rocket ship. We have launched lots of rockets. Millions of people have seen them launch. We have lots of physical evidence about rocket ships and a lot of people have ridden in them. Rockets are well defined, mathematically modeled, and small versions can be purchased and launched by anybody.
There are no video tapes of god, math of god, or any physical trace of god. Your god is a figment of your imagination. You can't produce any physical evidence for your god because it doesn't exist. So you make up a lot of elaborate hide and go seek fantasies about the invisible man who is going to make you live forever in paradise but is nowhere to be seen here and now.
Ok thinker man how many videos are there of string membranes? dark matter? Neutrinos? such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level and thinks the deicing factor between what is credible and what is obscured is physical visibility. Even the ancient Greeks knew better,
Round II Margie II in my debate with Bradley Bowen of secular outpost,
here's my answer
Joe Hinman said...
" Ok thinker man how many videos are there of string membranes? "
--Is that what your god is? A string? Is a string omnipresent?
Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
What is the mathematical model of god?
" such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level"
--You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
July 30, 2017 7:20 AM
Stardusty,
All you've done is replace "the Almighty and Everlasting God, the Lord of Hosts" with the words "magic pixies". That's not an argument. It's not even reason. (Besides, I know of no Christian who talks like your strawman example. You sound like Donald Trump when he puts on that whiny voice of his in a lame attempt to imitate his critics.)
But reasoning with you is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. I can't count how many times it's been explained to you that the Creator is NOT part of His creation, so any attempt to find Him by observing the physical world is doomed to failure by definition. Yet you persist having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, and simply repeat, "I can't see Him!" as though that meant anything. (It doesn't.)
--You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
That was me, not Joe. And I knew perfectly well how to do so. I was just too unmotivated to go through the effort. And after you re-posted the material, I'm glad I didn't waste my time. It wouldn't have been worth it.
Mortal said...
--You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
" That was me, not Joe."
--No, that was Joe too. He also claimed the link did not work.
" And I knew perfectly well how to do so."
--Ok, then you just lied when you said "my keyboard does not have the function keys".
Yes, dishonesty is the simpler explanation for claims of broken links, inability to find a post, or a missing key.
Mortal said...
" All you've done is replace "the Almighty and Everlasting God, the Lord of Hosts" with the words "magic pixies". "
--Nope, you replaced the true gods, the magic pixies, with your false "Lord of Hosts". That's not an argument.
" I can't count how many times it's been explained to you that the Creator is NOT part of His creation"
--You mean "their" creation. It's lots of invisible magic pixies all working together, duh.
July 30, 2017 7:53 AM
Ok, then you just lied when you said "my keyboard does not have the function keys"
Quick to make accusations, aren't you? No lying involved. It does not have them.
You obviously have no familiarity with Google Chrome Books.
Mortal said...
Quick to make accusations, aren't you? No lying involved. It does not have them.
You obviously have no familiarity with Google Chrome Books.
July 30, 2017 8:28 AM
Chromebooks have a control key, abbreviated ctrl. Why do you persist in your lies? This is so petty of you.
https://www.howtogeek.com/189324/master-chrome-os-with-these-chromebook-keyboard-shortcuts/
Why do you persist in your demonstrable idiocy? I am typing this as we speak using my Google Chrome Book keyboard. It does not have any function keys.
Stardusty: "Probability based on what evidence? There is no physical evidence for god. Where? What?"
I can't find my grandpa anywhere in the painting he made.
Stardusty: "Interesting. Nobody has been able to raise a single objection to..."
My belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with the First Way, though I suppose you are correct that my language was broad enough to include individual arguments for God, even if they weren't mine.
Stardusty: "There are no sound arguments for god, none whatsoever. There never have been. The ancient arguments are particularly bad, and the modern ones fall apart quickly as well."
If this was true, I wouldn't believe in God. I have been given zero good reasons to believe atheism is even possible, let alone probable. They all amount to "just because" arguments.
Stardusty: "The problem is on the receiving end."
I don't have a single reason to suspect this.
Stardusty: "No, you have not concluded that."
Yes, I have concluded that.
Stardusty: "Interesting, please point out how shallow the referenced analysis is for..."
I'll eyeball it later this evening, going kayaking now.
Joe,
Sent an email to you.
I too do not base my belief in God on Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways (although I do acknowledge their unimpeachable reasoning). I base my faith on the trustworthiness of the Gospels and on the Apostolic Witness as faithfully passed on to today by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Despite 2000 years of trying, no one has yet to lay a glove on either of these.
Theology, philosophy, and apologetics are nice (they really are!), but in the end they are but icing on the cake. The cake is the Gospel.
And not only the cake, but the appetizer, main course, soup, salad, cocktails, after dinner drink, and floor show as well.
If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the Gospels and every other book ever written, I would unhesitatingly choose the Gospels.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "There are no sound arguments for god, none whatsoever. There never have been. The ancient arguments are particularly bad, and the modern ones fall apart quickly as well."
" If this was true, I wouldn't believe in God. "
--Then please name a sound argument for god.
"I have been given zero good reasons to believe atheism is even possible, let alone probable. They all amount to "just because" arguments."
--Is our observation of the physical world "just because"?
Stardusty: "Interesting, please point out how shallow the referenced analysis is for..."
" I'll eyeball it later this evening, going kayaking now."
--Isn't your internet device getting kind of wet?-)
July 30, 2017 11:06 AM
Then please name a sound argument for god.
The Gospels.
Mortal said...
" I too do not base my belief in God on Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways (although I do acknowledge their unimpeachable reasoning)."
--Then you have not studied them with any significant critical depth.
" I base my faith on the trustworthiness of the Gospels and on the Apostolic Witness as faithfully passed on to today by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Despite 2000 years of trying, no one has yet to lay a glove on either of "
these."
--Fairy tales and tabloid rumors.
July 30, 2017 11:39 AM
Eh.. there's just no pleasing some people.
Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
obviously they do, It may be unprovable that does not stop them theorizing about it,
What is the mathematical model of god?
8 on it's side
" such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level"
--You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
that is not a matter of intelligence or reasoning it requires specific knowledge,l you don't how to make html milks because you never do on this board,
with thinking if you can't see something you cant believe in it,
Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
To the first question, I used to play chess in high school with this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Polchinski
Joe Hinman said...
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" obviously they do, "
--You know nothing, in that case, of how scientists approach a problem.
Nobody believes in strings. Strings are just a speculative field of research that has not shown itself to be terribly fruitful. Some scientists may hold the opinion that eventually some sort of string theory will likely be worked out. Nobody has faith that such theories are true and if somebody comes along with a better theory it will not be a crisis of faith to change to that theory.
SP What is the mathematical model of god?
" 8 on it's side"
--You obviously do not know what a mathematical model is. When the model has solutions that go to infinity that means it is not formulated correctly. Renormalization has been an approach to such a situation, the other is abandonment of that part of the theory.
" such a powerful thinker who can't reason beyond the elementary school level"
SP --You couldn't even figure out how to use a link and a date/time tag to find a post.
" that is not a matter of intelligence or reasoning it requires specific knowledge,"
--You are a site owner who does not know how to use a URL and then find a post by date/time tag? WTF?
"l you don't how to make html milks because you never do on this board,
with thinking if you can't see something you cant believe in it,"
--Now you are just mumbling incoherently. The link and the date/time tag is right there, functional, and obvious.
The fact is that neither you or Mortal has any capacity to engage me on the merits and form rational counter arguments that negate my carefully written arguments at the link and tags provided.
July 30, 2017 4:11 PM
my carefully written arguments
The most cursory glance showed them to be not worthy of anyone's time. I did read through them to make sure I hadn't missed anything interesting.
I hadn't.
Victor Reppert said...
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" To the first question, I used to play chess in high school with this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Polchinski"
--He undoubtedly made for an interesting chess opponent, or teammate, I am not sure which was the case. In any event he is obviously a very bright guy.
I can't find anything from Polchinski resembling a statement of faith in strings, or a belief in strings, or treatment of strings as though they must necessarily be real.
He does consider that "String theory (and the entire base of physics upon which it has been built)is one of mankind’s great achievements".
http://stringworld.ru/files/Polchinski_J._String_theory._Vol._1._An_introduction_to_the_bosonic_string.pdf
But that does not mean he believes in him.
One publication said "Physicists believe that the best hope for a fundamental theory of nature – including unification of quantum mechanics with general relativity and elementary particle theory – lies in string theory".
http://stringworld.ru/files/Polchinski_J._String_theory._Vol._2._Superstring_theory_and_beyond.pdf
So, yes, physicists believe things, they believe that one line of research is more likely to lead to advances than another line of research.
Physics theories are not things to believe in, they are simply believed to be the best description presently available and in some cases highly accurate models of reality and in other cases speculative research that is thought to be the most likely to be ultimately successful.
July 30, 2017 4:36 PM
Mortal said...
SP my carefully written arguments
" The most cursory glance showed them to be not worthy of anyone's time. I did read through them to make sure I hadn't missed anything interesting. I hadn't."
--Interesting,
What defects did you spot during your "cursory glance"?
July 30, 2017 5:14 PM
Victor Reppert said...
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" To the first question, I used to play chess in high school with this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Polchinski"
July 30, 2017 4:36 PM
Here is his conclusion from book II:
19.10 Conclusion
Especially in this final chapter, we have only been able to scratch the surface of many important and beautiful ideas. String theory is a rich structure, whose full form is not yet understood. It is a mathematical structure, but deeply grounded in physics. It incorporates and unifies the central principles of physics: quantum mechanics, gauge symmetry, and general relativity, as well as anticipated new principles: supersymmetry, grand unification, and Kaluza–Klein theory. Undoubtedly there are many remarkable discoveries still to be made.
http://stringworld.ru/files/Polchinski_J._String_theory._Vol._2._Superstring_theory_and_beyond.pdf
--Sorry, I just do not see any statement of "belief" similar to the the way a theist will profess belief in god.
Your points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are flat out opinion (or maybe your wishes), which you mistake for fact.
Your point number 9 demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what the First Way even says. You have no idea what you are arguing against. It's embarrassing to even read such inanity.
The others are simply noise - irrelevancies.
Mortal said...
" Your points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are flat out opinion (or maybe your wishes), which you mistake for fact."
--That's why you would need to read the arguments referenced below. Each one of those points is supported with significant argument. Dismissing the summary listing of assertions without specifically addressing the arguments for them is meaningless on your part.
" Your point number 9 demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what the First Way even says."
--Again, you would have to read the arguments referenced below the summary list. The plain text of the description of a causal series is incontrovertibly a description of a temporal regress.
However, Thomists do a great deal of "what he really meant to say" sorts of excuse making, apparently unaware that their assertion that plainly temporal language actually refers to an ontological series is actually what makes the First Way defective beyond all repair.
It's all covered in the referenced posts:
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
Summary:
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Stardusty: "Then please name a sound argument for god."
My experience with self-described skeptics is that they cannot fathom the possibility of their own powers of reasoning leading them astray. Case in point, in the Haines thread I directly quoted past statements for Cal multiple times irrefutably proving him wrong on some point or other, and he was incapable of acknowledging being wrong. Point being, self-described skeptics have their minds made up. There is nothing profitable to be gained by making the attempt.
But even if I did make the attempt and presented every argument I found compelling, it would still do neither of us any good. I find atheism to be quite indefensible, and that would not change if you managed to actually convince me Christianity was no good. Try offering evidence or arguments that atheism is a reasonable position - that's potentially more productive for you than convincing me that Christianity belongs with atheism in the "irrational" category.
If all you're seeking is opportunity to snipe at Christianity, I'm sure there are plenty of others here happy to play defense. Not my style.
Stardusty: "Is our observation of the physical world "just because"?"
Is the physical world your justification for atheism?
Stardusty: "Isn't your internet device getting kind of wet?-)"
Last time I went, I actually did manage to dunk my phone, but although I was too stupid to bring a ziplock bag to keep it in, I had the presence of mind to turn it off prior to getting in the kayak, so it did no damage.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Then please name a sound argument for god."
" My experience with self-described skeptics is that they cannot fathom the possibility of their own powers of reasoning leading them astray. "
--That is the antithesis of scientific thought. The scientifically minded person begins with the exclamation of the biases and faults and many ways that human perception can deceive us.
From there we seek to identify and control for those potential human frailties. That is a big part of the scientific method and "ought" to be an ever present consideration in the mind of a "true" skeptic.
"Case in point, in the Haines thread I directly quoted past statements for Cal multiple times irrefutably proving him wrong on some point or other, and he was incapable of acknowledging being wrong. "
--Guilt by association fallacy. I only recall one instance when I misread your words. The odd thing was that when I reread that particular passage I misread it the same way several times! At last, I read your rebuttal very carefully word by word, and compared to the the previous statements and was somewhat flabbergasted to realize that I had in fact misread the passage several times.
I really reflected on that for some time. It reminded me of some of the cognitive artifacts we used to play around with to trick each other as kids, or some of the ways Daniel Dennet points out we tend to fool ourselves.
Well, nobody is immune. Any reasonable skeptic will be the first to tell you so and gladly admit when he himself gets caught up in such.
" But even if I did make the attempt and presented every argument I found compelling, "
--Oh, I wasn't really thinking of any full presentations. There really are not very many, and they all have names, unless you feel you have some unique argument that has yet to be published.
Kalam
Beauty
Ontological first cause
Morality
Personal experience
Design
Fine tuning
etc.
Stardusty: "Is our observation of the physical world "just because"?"
" Is the physical world your justification for atheism?"
--That's the start. On modern knowledge of science there is no necessity for god. Naturalism is sufficient.
Stardusty: "Isn't your internet device getting kind of wet?-)"
" Last time I went, I actually did manage to dunk my phone, but although I was too stupid to bring a ziplock bag to keep it in, I had the presence of mind to turn it off prior to getting in the kayak, so it did no damage."
--"It is in our nature that we do not recognize our mistakes until after we have made them." ---- Christopher Hitchens
July 30, 2017 7:05 PM
Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said...
SP Does anybody believe in strings? What will it take for strings to become accepted as real?
" obviously they do, "
--You know nothing, in that case, of how scientists approach a problem.
you have not been in a Ph,D, program for 10 year and you have not studied history science in the that program,so I know more than you do about science,
Nobody believes in strings. Strings are just a speculative field of research that has not shown itself to be terribly fruitful. Some scientists may hold the opinion that eventually some sort of string theory will likely be worked out. Nobody has faith that such theories are true and if somebody comes along with a better theory it will not be a crisis of faith to change to that theory.
O right they their work the same way George Perez regards his works for DC comics it;ws just fun filled fantasy you are really are an idiot. If that's what you think theoretical mean then you really knkow nothing about science. They do belive in sub atomic particles and string are merely sub atomic particles viewed a different angel,
HERE
"The bassic idea behind String Theory is that all of the different "fundamental particles" of the Standard Model are really just different versions of one basic object: - a vibrating oscillating string. Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely "powerful microscope" (way beyond today's capabilities) we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of vibrating string (sometimes called a filament). A string can do somethings besides move - it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates one way, then from a distance we see an electron and we are unable to tell it is really a string. But if it oscillates some other way, we call it a photon, or a quark, and so forth. If String Theory is correct, the entire universe is made of oscillating strings. See the illustration at the left showing some strings that might make up a quark."
I wrote a post answering his little quips with much more cleaver ones but reading it back back I could not hear words without Steven Cobert's voice imitation Donald Trump,.
It's so laughable that he thinks knowing some little computer thing is proof of intelligence and that knowing that somehow disproves all the ideas and logic and thinking about God.
His concept of science is nothing but technological wizardry. Unless you can can manipulate hard data and visibly see results one can't place confidence in an hypothesis, Of course never mind the inanity of reducing belief to hypothesis testing.
most puerile of all he set's up a mathematical model of a thing as the acid test but funny how reality obeys the relative dictates of 21st century scinetism.
"-That is the antithesis of scientific thought. The scientifically minded person begins with the exclamation of the biases and faults and many ways that human perception can deceive us.
From there we seek to identify and control for those potential human frailties. That is a big part of the scientific method and "ought" to be an ever present consideration in the mind of a "true" skeptic."
No that is not science. This guy is the poster boy for scientism. That is nothing more than a description of scinetism, it's ideology and propaganda.
" But even if I did make the attempt and presented every argument I found compelling, "
--Oh, I wasn't really thinking of any full presentations. There really are not very many, and they all have names, unless you feel you have some unique argument that has yet to be published.
Kalam
Beauty
Ontological first cause
Morality
Personal experience
Design
Fine tuning
etc.
are you saying those are all the God arguments there are? Platinga has 150 at one point,you can;t argue the one's you named.
you left out mine,m go back up to the link I gave read my debate,
Here
While Dusty lectures on his expertise in smashing Aquinas let's back to another time and examine his discussion on the modal argument. Of course there;s not much chance of beating him because he knows that computer thingie.
we are in nuclear confrontation, the misses are on their way,I would pray for redemption but hey Dusty knew the computer tine thing so there must not be a God to pray to.
Let's re visit a discussion on modal argument i had with him
here
Joe Hinman said...
" you have not been in a Ph,D, program for 10 year "
--Where are you in a PhD program exactly? The University of Matchbook Covers?
Dude, if you have been at it for 10 years, you have a problem.
1.You chose some thesis topic so outlandishly difficult you have no hope of completion.
2.You chose some thesis topic so outlandishly simple you have no hope of being credited with a PhD on the basis of researching something that trivial.
3.You are such an incompetent twit nobody is ever going to even allow you to defend your thesis (dissertation) or if they do they will rip it to shreds and reject your defense.
My advice to you is to get a different mentor, reevaluate your completion plan, and get it done already before you die of old age.
" George Perez regards his works for DC comics "
--WTF are you prattling on about now?
" Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. "
--You are an idiot. Learn something about the conventional properties of an electron before you open your dumbass mouth.
Joe Hinman said...
" you left out mine,"
--Like what? And no, I am not going to your site. You are continually making the rounds trying to leech off other blogs to divert traffic to your site, so you can act like a total jackass to anybody who tries to engage you there.
No thanks.
July 30, 2017 10:32 PM
here
tardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said...
" you left out mine,"
--Like what? And no, I am not going to your site. You are continually making the rounds trying to leech off other blogs to divert traffic to your site, so you can act like a total jackass to anybody who tries to engage you there.
that is a silly excuse to doge answering after you set your self up as the lecturer on the weakness of God arguments. No one thinks adding two milks a week in addition to my comments is spam. about half the time they fit the subject matter,
No thanks.
O that's right you got that computer time thing you don;tneed to think
Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. "
--You are an idiot. Learn something about the conventional properties of an electron before you open your dumbass mouth.
ahahahhahahahhahh you doesn't even understand my point. he;s punching around at random because he hopes he hits something
10 years on PhD is not uncommon,It's not like community college which I suspect is your highest level
btw it university of Texas at Dallas.you would not understand what I studied,
" Ordinarily an electron is pictured as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. "
--You are an idiot. Learn something about the conventional properties of an electron before you open your dumbass mouth.
I did not say that dumbo the guy who wrote the article said it, He had credentials in science do you/ other than community college,
Joe Hinman said...
" btw it university of Texas at Dallas.you would not understand what I studied,"
--Interesting, what department? What is your thesis topic?
July 31, 2017 1:49 AM
" btw it university of Texas at Dallas.you would not understand what I studied,"
--Interesting, what department? What is your thesis topic?
History of ideas. My thesis: The Latitudinarians and other Christians who popularized Newton's physics ad helped established modern science shot themselves in the foot and prepared the way for skeptics like d'Holdbach and LaPlace to reject religion in the same of science by not maintaining the original concept of the supernatural.
Blogger Joe Hinman said...
" I did not say that dumbo the guy who wrote the article said it,"
--Then why repeat it if the guy is so dumb?
FYI, an electron is modeled with properties of mass, charge, and spin. If spin is considered to be angular momentum then that is at odds with the notion that the electron is a point, since a zero radius object will have zero angular momentum.
Electrons can also be accelerated and thus have kinetic energy and interact with other charged particles without necessarily contacting them by virtue of their electric field associated with their charge.
An electron in an atom also sets up a magnetic field since the movement of the electron is in some sense a current. An electron can absorb a photon and take on a higher orbital energy level, and then emit a photon when it drops to a lower energy level.
This is basic physics I can recite from memory while you are quoting dumbos, probably because you have only a vague notion of what I am talking about and just pasted his words based on your perception of his "credentials".
You are incapable of going to the link, reading the arguments, and forming any cogent counter arguments. All you do is take scattered potshots, quote dumbos, make a lot of claims about how great you are, try to divert traffic to your site, and never actually engage in a thoughtful exchange.
You have proven yourself entirely incapable in any sort of cogent rational discourse, which is why you do not form cogent, on topic counter arguments. You don't know how to, or if you do, you keep that skill well hidden.
July 31, 2017 1:58 AM
Stardusty Psyche said...
Blogger Joe Hinman said...
" I did not say that dumbo the guy who wrote the article said it,"
--Then why repeat it if the guy is so dumb?
that's so cute, no would ever think of that one/
FYI, an electron is modeled with properties of mass, charge, and spin. If spin is considered to be angular momentum then that is at odds with the notion that the electron is a point, since a zero radius object will have zero angular momentum.
Jethro goes to the draft and they give him a test. the question says:if A dogs a hole and B digs a hole..." Jethro says "It's a trick question, they didn't say a what. I've seen that explanation about strings many times by physicists on all sorts of sites,particles are repented by points, they are called points because they are not lines.It's obvious you don't know anything about the stuff you flap your gums over. where are your scientific credentials? where did you do your doctoral work?
++
Electrons can also be accelerated and thus have kinetic energy and interact with other charged particles without necessarily contacting them by virtue of their electric field associated with their charge.
An electron in an atom also sets up a magnetic field since the movement of the electron is in some sense a current. An electron can absorb a photon and take on a higher orbital energy level, and then emit a photon when it drops to a lower energy level.
that has no bearing on the quote,
This is basic physics I can recite from memory while you are quoting dumbos, probably because you have only a vague notion of what I am talking about and just pasted his words based on your perception of his "credentials".
I see you know nothing about string theory the quote in the article was not written by me fool.Stop pretending like you are drugging with me,you contradicting a scientist,
where did you go to graduate school?
String theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
"Image result for what are strings in string theory?
In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. ... Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity."
[note the quotation marks do you know what those are? you missed them last time]
In quantum mechanics, there is a distinction between an elementary particle (also called "point particle") and a composite particle. ... The particle wavepacket always occupies a nonzero volume. For example, see atomic orbital: The electron is an elementary particle, but its quantum states form three-dimensional patterns.
Point particle - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
Concept of a point particle in quantum mechanics
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
5
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24546/concept-of-a-point-particle-in-quantum-mechanics
"A point particle is usually thought of as structureless and without dimension. However, given that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prohibits us from knowing the position of a particle exactly, what is the significance of the concept of a point particle? Are point particles equivalent to elementary particles?"
note the title of this next one
Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41676/why-do-physicists-believe-that-particles-are-pointlike
"String theory gives physicists reason to believe that particles are 1-dimensional strings because the theory has a purpose - unifying gravity with the gauge theories.
So why is it that it's popular belief that particles are 0-dimensional points? Was there ever a proposed theory of them being like this? And why?
What reason do physicists have to believe that particles are 0-dimensional points as opposed to 1-dimensional strings?"
contradicts several things you said,
Fermi lab, you going to tell them they know nothing about it?
title:L
What's the point?
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html
"The quarks, leptons and bosons of the Standard Model are point-like particles. Every other subatomic particle you�ve heard of is an extended particle. The most familiar are the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom, but there are many others—pions, kaons, Lambda particles, omegas and lots more. The defining feature of these kinds of particles is that they have a reasonably measurable size (which happens to be about the size of a proton)."
Joe Polchinski clearly thinks that the claims made by string theory are true, and he thinks he has good reasons to think this. He could be mistaken. Physicists like Lee Smolin think he is. It is the same with theists and atheists. Theists typically think they have reasons, atheists think they don't. The beliefs are not different in kind, though they are not different in significance for those who believe or don't.
@Joe Hinman:
There is an ambiguity on the issue of fundamental particles as point-like particles. They are modelled as point-like particles (just look at the Lagrangean, at the fundamental Green propagator, etc.), but at the same time there are coherent notions of the radius of an electron as measured say, in scattering experiments. And by the way, spin or *intrinsic* angular momentum is an internal degree of freedom, is quite distinct from orbital angular momentum, which would be the proper quantum counterpart of the classical angular momentum -- that is probably the second or third thing it is drilled on you in a first serious course in QM -- that can be seen as arising from Neother's theorem and rotational invariance. To quote E. Merzbacher, "Quantum Mechanics", 2ed (an oldie by now), pg. 254-255:
"According to the Goudsmith-Uhlenbeck hypothesis, we must envisage the electron to be a point charge with finite magnetic dipole moment, the projection of which can only take two values.
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck also postulated that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum (spin), but this quantity is not nearly as easy to measure directly as the magnetic moment."
In other words, disregard what Stardusty said.
Victor Reppert said...
" Joe Polchinski clearly thinks that the claims made by string theory are true, and he thinks he has good reasons to think this. He could be mistaken. Physicists like Lee Smolin think he is. It is the same with theists and atheists. Theists typically think they have reasons, atheists think they don't. The beliefs are not different in kind, though they are not different in significance for those who believe or don't."
July 31, 2017 11:24 AM
You are making an equivalency that is not the case.
The difference between physicists who think string theory is more likely compared to physicists who think some other theory is more likely, is more like the difference between a Catholic and a Lutheran, or perhaps between an A+ atheist and me.
Those are rough analogies, not intended to be some sort of precise gauge, but my point is that for many theists the mental processes of faith and belief in god are so ingrained it seems difficult to imagine their absence, so I have frequently had a theist, in all good intention, tell me this or that is my god. The very idea that one could not have a god of any sort is so foreign to many theists that they project their faith thought process onto others who simply do not function by the faith thought process.
grodrigues said...
There is an ambiguity on the issue of fundamental particles as point-like particles.... (just look at the Lagrangean, at the fundamental Green propagator, etc.), but at the same time there are coherent notions of the radius of an electron as measured say, in scattering experiments.
And by the way, spin or *intrinsic* angular momentum is an internal degree of freedom, is quite distinct from orbital angular momentum,
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck also postulated that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum (spin), but this quantity is not nearly as easy to measure directly as the magnetic moment."
--Geeee, your amazing copy and paste skills had me thinking you are a really super smart physics guy, but then you copied and pasted statements that don't work so well together, as well as confusing orbital angular momentum with the angular momentum of an individual spinning particle, almost like you don't know what the hell you are even talking about...
Joe Hinman said...
" that's so cute, ...Jethro goes to the draft ...flap your gums over. ...you "
As always, you display no capacity to engage in rational discourse.
All you ever do throw is out some pointless quips and then copy and paste a series of quotes, completely unable to form a rational, on topic argument in your own words.
According to this, you "was" a PhD student, past tense. It says you quit, citing family issues. Now you are a so-called "independent scholar".
Your story smells like horse pucky.
I read some of Deep Structures on google. Do you have a ghost writer? Your blogging is a scattered mess by comparison. The book is still drivel, but at least you manage to put somewhat well structured sentences together.
"Mr. Hinman did his undergraduate work in sociology and debate at the University of Texas at Arlington. He earned a Masters degree in Theological studies where he focused upon history of doctrine at Perkins school of Theology, Southern Methodist University. He was a Ph.D. candidate in the History of Ideas (Intellectual History) and studied at the doctoral level for several years at University of Texas at Dallas. He began work focusing upon Derrida and the postmodern understanding of the self. He then switched and spent five years studying history and philosophy of science, focusing upon Newton, Boyle and the Latitudinarians. In the process of completing his dissertation, he was forced to terminate his studies ABD (all but the dissertation) due to family tragedies. Mr. Hinman published the peer-reviewed academic journal, Negations: an interdisciplinary journal of social criticism. He now works as an independent scholar. "
https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
Blogger grodrigues said...
@Joe Hinman:
I thought Dusty said I was so stupid for saying particles are points,even though I didn't say that, so I put out evince showing physicists do think of particles as points,everyone you quoted refereed to particles as points.
You are making an equivalency that is not the case.
The difference between physicists who think string theory is more likely compared to physicists who think some other theory is more likely, is more like the difference between a Catholic and a Lutheran, or perhaps between an A+ atheist and me.
Those are rough analogies, not intended to be some sort of precise gauge, but my point is that for many theists the mental processes of faith and belief in god are so ingrained it seems difficult to imagine their absence, so I have frequently had a theist, in all good intention, tell me this or that is my god. The very idea that one could not have a god of any sort is so foreign to many theists that they project their faith thought process onto others who simply do not function by the faith thought process.
there is a minority of physicists called realists and other schools under that umbrella who say the things they theorize about are real and we can know how thins work literally. Most physicists are what the realists call Humeans who don't think it's a literal 1x1 correspondence but that there are metaphors it's all approximation.
I thought that might have been what Dusty was talking about when he said no no one believes in string theory. Now I'm mo so sure
All you ever do throw is out some pointless quips and then copy and paste a series of quotes, completely unable to form a rational, on topic argument in your own words.
According to this, you "was" a PhD student, past tense. It says you quit, citing family issues. Now you are a so-called "independent scholar".
Your story smells like horse pucky.
Don't fowl yourself in an attempt to insult someone else,.
First of all you have not told us where you did your doctoral work? Nor where you did your Masters? I do have a Masters,do you?
Secondly,I was in doctoral work 10 years I had 4.0 half that time.I passed qualifying examines with a commendation form the committee.I quite ABD (all but dissertation).
I read some of Deep Structures on google. Do you have a ghost writer? Your blogging is a scattered mess by comparison. The book is still drivel, but at least you manage to put somewhat well structured sentences together.
No one just dashes off a book and sends it to the publisher, that you don't knw how hard it is to write a book tells me you have never done it.All Publishers will proof manuscripts. I work really hard to makemy postslegible.,I tke ten timeslongeron thenthen mostpeople,I scjltthemoverandover, but here;s whatI;'msupagain
(1) I can barelysee
(2)i'm lying flat on my back
(3)I have dyslexia
(4) I was in a coma for two months (priming of 15) I has stopped breathing so suffered some brain damage,I am bedfast and in a nursing home and will probably never walk again. I had a superbot infection that was resistant to antibiotics and came so close to dying all the doctors at the hospital but one wanted to take me off life support.
"Mr. Hinman did his undergraduate work in sociology and debate at the University of Texas at Arlington. He earned a Masters degree in Theological studies where he focused upon history of doctrine at Perkins school of Theology, Southern Methodist University. He was a Ph.D. candidate in the History of Ideas (Intellectual History) and studied at the doctoral level for several years at University of Texas at Dallas. He began work focusing upon Derrida and the postmodern understanding of the self. He then switched and spent five years studying history and philosophy of science, focusing upon Newton, Boyle and the Latitudinarians. In the process of completing his dissertation, he was forced to terminate his studies ABD (all but the dissertation) due to family tragedies. Mr. Hinman published the peer-reviewed academic journal, Negations: an interdisciplinary journal of social criticism. He now works as an independent scholar. "
https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
July 31, 2017 9:28 PM
I wrote that, what about it?
sy Dusty whatis horse "pucky?"
btw Dusty said he saw deep strictures on google, the publisher efg in Canada put up a pre release preview om google books just the first chapter.
it's an arguent I made here once the transcendental signing, the actually title is:
God and the Deep Strictures of Being
@Stardusty Psyche:
"Geeee, your amazing copy and paste skills had me thinking you are a really super smart physics guy, but then you copied and pasted statements that don't work so well together, as well as confusing orbital angular momentum with the angular momentum of an individual spinning particle, almost like you don't know what the hell you are even talking about..."
I confused nothing whatsoever, much less orbital angular momentum with spin, as can be easily seen by actually reading what I wrote. It is one of the perks of actually having had an education the capacity to smell a fake and fraud miles away, and you stink -- and when your bullshit is called out, you predictably behave like the typical internet juvenile punk.
Joe Hinman said...
". I work really hard to makemy postslegible.,I tke ten timeslongeron thenthen mostpeople,"
--Right, I am not talking about legibility. What you do is not an issue of legibility. What you do is almost immediately turn to book writing mode while in a conversation.
In book writing mode you have a set of ideas you wish to convey, so you research, cite your sources, and give a long written speech.
That's not a conversation.
What you don't do here or elsewhere is read for comprehension the points the other person is making and respond on topic to those points.
What you do instead is pull out a few words, make some quips, and then launch into a speech that is oblivious to the arguments the other person made.
That's not a conversation.
I scjltthemoverandover, but here;s whatI;'msupagain
(1) I can barelysee
(2)i'm lying flat on my back
(3)I have dyslexia
(4) I was in a coma for two months (priming of 15) I has stopped breathing so suffered some brain damage,I am bedfast and in a nursing home and will probably never walk again. I had a superbot infection that was resistant to antibiotics and came so close to dying all the doctors at the hospital but one wanted to take me off life support."
--No wonder you seem so grumpy. I get real grumpy sometimes when I am in pain or I can't do the things I want to do. That is human nature.
I suggest you take a scientific approach to control for the limitations and biases you are faced with. As you well know, humans have many cognitive and perceptual biases, as well as limits in our available observations. Science seeks to identify and control for these effects.
My advice to you is that if you wish to engage in a productive discourse with those who disagree with you the first thing you need to do is concentrate on what the other person is saying, come to understand that other viewpoint, and limit your responses to words that are germane to the rational content of what is actually being argued.
Pulling out a few words, issuing cryptic quips, citing long sources that address only your strawman or the speech you wish to make, and accusatory speculations about the other's supposed lack of authority to speak are all less than pointless, rather, they are strongly counterproductive.
August 01, 2017 12:28 AM
Open question to anyone reading, to be somewhat more on topic, the basic question regarding a given belief would be, at what point do we know that the belief is
A) one that can be held with certainty
B) one that can be assumed to likely be true due to probability or reasonableness
C) one that can be suspected is true but judgment should be withheld
D) one that can be suspected is not true but judgment should be withheld
E) one that can be assumed to likely not be true due to low probability or reasonableness
F) one that can be dismissed with certainty
As there are exactly zero experts on objectively weighing the significance of a piece of evidence, particularly in an area not open to experimentation, what makes a belief fall into one of the six categories above, and how do we know? Logical consistency does not make something reflective of reality (though logical inconsistency can disqualify), so what are the criteria you use, and why do you hold your own weighing of evidence as being superior to that of people who disagree?
EDusty you a bit of the sane thing and it's a petty cpomoaint,
Legion of Logic said...
" A) one that can be held with certainty
B) one that can be assumed to likely be true due to probability or reasonableness
C) one that can be suspected is true but judgment should be withheld
D) one that can be suspected is not true but judgment should be withheld
E) one that can be assumed to likely not be true due to low probability or reasonableness
F) one that can be dismissed with certainty"
--Those classifications are along atheistic lines, judging probabilities by weight of evidence.
You omitted belief along theistic lines, irrational beliefs, prejudiced beliefs, beliefs by indoctrination, by emotion, and beliefs against evidence, faith based beliefs.
People believe things for a variety of reasons, and not uncommonly, primarily because they have been told so for as long as they can remember. Some such beliefs are what nearly all of us consider reprehensible, such and racial prejudices believed because one grew up in a racially prejudiced social environment.
Some theists claim to have what they consider a "reasonable faith". Yet even among those who profess to have come to their faith by way of reason they typically embrace unabashedly and even proudly their supposed "personal experience" of god, that imagined sense of somehow having detected or connected with or felt the presence of god on a visceral level.
Such usages of the term "belief" are anathema to physicists. That is the point I have been trying to express to Victor and others who may be interested.
Physicists do have strong opinions that could roughly be categorized in your A through F above. They do not have belief in the sense of faith, as a theist has, and thus my demonstration of the false equivalency between the belief of a physicist in a particular theory, as opposed to the belief of a theist in god.
August 01, 2017 7:50 AM
grodrigues said...
" I confused nothing whatsoever, "
--Actually you did. I suggest you do a more careful job the next time you try to fake yourself off as a learned individual by your copy and paste routine.
" you stink"
--Oh yest, you are such a learned scholar, just look at the airtight logical argumentation you employ!
" you predictably behave like the typical internet juvenile punk."
--My my my, oh yes, how my brain is just overwhelmed by your scholarly dissertations.
Tell you what, physics genius, please explain to me why something that is not changing calls for a changer.
You are obviously such a great Thomist, I am sure you can find all the flaws in the arguments summarized here:
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Details Here:
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
August 01, 2017 2:47 AM
@Strawdusty,
Tell you what, physics genius, please explain to me why something that is not changing calls for a changer.
Where did you ever get that idea?
And why do you not link to the original posts HERE that include rebuttals to your blunders while you were blundering?
Blogger bmiller said...
SP Tell you what, physics genius, please explain to me why something that is not changing calls for a changer.
" Where did you ever get that idea?"
--I get the idea that a thing that is not changing does not call for a changer from the principle of non-contradiction. Things that are being changed call for a changer. Things that are not changing do not call for a changer. Pretty simple.
" And why do you not link to the original posts HERE that include rebuttals"
1.Those "rebuttals" are scattered and irrational with no argumentation merit and thus not worthy of being referenced.
2.Despite the lack of value of those rebuttals I have anticipated the form of misconceptions expressed in them and addressed them in my detailed arguments.
3.You already linked them previously.
4.You are free to provide whatever links you wish.
5.I am not terribly inclined to link conversation against conversation across various blog sites.
August 01, 2017 8:27 PM
@Strawdusty,
Is this where you came up with your bizarre assertion?
http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf
Where Dr Feser rebuts the assertion that inertia contradicts the First Way?
From the section labeled:
"II. Why the conflict is illusory"
From the link to Feser's blog:
“3. The “state” of motion: … the principle of inertia treats uniform local motion as a “state,” it treats it thereby as the absence of change. “
--Here Feser acknowledges that uniform motion is the absence of change.
Why would one assert a cause for no change? Why should we need an explanation for the fact that things stay as they are absent any change?
1) Dr Feser is arguing that inertia does not contradict the First Way.
2) The First Way concerns things that are in motion/change.
3) Some argue inertia contradicts the First Way since it may appear that things move/change themselves.
4) But if inertia is considered no change, then those things said to be changing are not actually changing
5) So then if those things are not actually moving/changing, then they cannot contradict the First Way since they are not actually moving/changing.
6) So inertia does not contradict the First Way.
It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out.
@Strawdusty,
I have anticipated the form of misconceptions expressed in them and addressed them in my detailed arguments.
No you haven't responded on Dr Feser's site nor on Dr Reppert's.
As evidence you just posted this comment which I pointed out is irrelevant to contradict the First Way for 3 different reasons.
--I get the idea that a thing that is not changing does not call for a changer from the principle of non-contradiction. Things that are being changed call for a changer. Things that are not changing do not call for a changer. Pretty simple.
I suggest you take a scientific approach to control for the limitations and biases you are faced with. As you well know, humans have many cognitive and perceptual biases, as well as limits in our available observations. Science seeks to identify and control for these effects.
you are truly a self important little moron, your idiotic criticism now boils down to I'm not conversational enough what a fool! you are such a jackass., I've wasted too much of my life arguing with fools who are too stupid to get it.
Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said...
". I work really hard to makemy postslegible.,I tke ten timeslongeron thenthen mostpeople,"
--Right, I am not talking about legibility. What you do is not an issue of legibility. What you do is almost immediately turn to book writing mode while in a conversation.
In book writing mode you have a set of ideas you wish to convey, so you research, cite your sources, and give a long written speech.
That's not a conversation.
so nos this jackass wants me to think his real argument is that I'm not conversational enough!!!! sorry I din't know this was Good morning Ameliorate,I know the old wind up about spelling when I see it.
I think what really happened is he makes these insults about my spieling but then get's this list of limitations I'm facing so he swatches to something I could deal with like being conversational,Except it's petty issue and I care.
What you don't do here or elsewhere is read for comprehension the points the other person is making and respond on topic to those points.
you are the guy who doesn't get when I'm quoting other people bukt I don't have the comprehension?
What you do instead is pull out a few words, make some quips, and then launch into a speech that is oblivious to the arguments the other person made.
of course you lack the intelligence to read the content of the speech and pull it all together into a case.
That's not a conversation.
this is not a conversation no, most of my conversations are not about how those who disagree with me don't know anything about science,
(1) I can barelysee
(2)i'm lying flat on my back
(3)I have dyslexia
(4) I was in a coma for two months (priming of 15) I has stopped breathing so suffered some brain damage,I am bedfast and in a nursing home and will probably never walk again. I had a superbot infection that was resistant to antibiotics and came so close to dying all the doctors at the hospital but one wanted to take me off life support."
--No wonder you seem so grumpy. I get real grumpy sometimes when I am in pain or I can't do the things I want to do. That is human nature.
I suggest you take a scientific approach to control for the limitations and biases you are faced with. As you well know, humans have many cognitive and perceptual biases, as well as limits in our available observations. Science seeks to identify and control for these effects.
I suggest you take a flying...leap...at the moon,
My advice to you is that if you wish to engage in a productive discourse with those who disagree with you the first thing you need to do is concentrate on what the other person is saying, come to understand that other viewpoint, and limit your responses to words that are germane to the rational content of what is actually being argued.
now he's worried about productive discourse,
Pulling out a few words, issuing cryptic quips, citing long sources that address only your strawman or the speech you wish to make, and accusatory speculations about the other's supposed lack of authority to speak are all less than pointless, rather, they are strongly counterproductive.
so is ragging on people's personal histories you known nothing about and insulting people who know more than you because you can't take the fact that a Christian bested you,
@Stardusty Psyche:
"Actually you did."
Liar.
Stardusty: "Those classifications are along atheistic lines, judging probabilities by weight of evidence.
You omitted belief along theistic lines, irrational beliefs, prejudiced beliefs, beliefs by indoctrination, by emotion, and beliefs against evidence, faith based beliefs."
Well this is easily the most foolish thing you've written (that I've seen) in quite some time, but it is also a typical mindset in the skeptic brain. Skeptics think so highly of themselves and so little of theists, yet there is zero justification for thinking so - a solid F in my categories.
Sad.
Blogger bmiller said...
“3. The “state” of motion: … the principle of inertia treats uniform local motion as a “state,” it treats it thereby as the absence of change. “
--Here Feser acknowledges that uniform motion is the absence of change.
" It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out."
--I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article, since you both write irrationally.
I have written a series of principles and arguments that form a comprehensive negation of any call for a first mover. Whether you think one particular point I made address what you consider to be some other point in the article is of no concern to me. Your argumentation has shown itself to be disjointed and scattered.
My statement stands. When things don't change no changer is called for.
August 01, 2017 8:53 PM
bmiller said...
" No you haven't responded on Dr Feser's site nor on Dr Reppert's."
Summarized here:
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Details Here:
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
August 01, 2017 9:01 PM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Those classifications are along atheistic lines, judging probabilities by weight of evidence.
You omitted belief along theistic lines, irrational beliefs, prejudiced beliefs, beliefs by indoctrination, by emotion, and beliefs against evidence, faith based beliefs."
" Well this is easily the most foolish thing you've written (that I've seen) in quite some time, but it is also a typical mindset in the skeptic brain."
--I am not surprised you equate the two, that is, you equate the mental workings of the skeptic's brain with foolishness.
" Skeptics think so highly of themselves and so little of theists, yet there is zero justification for thinking so - a solid F in my categories. Sad. "
--You apparently consider your mode of thinking to be higher in some sense than that of skeptics, so it seems you suffer from the same F grade thinking you are accusing the other of.
Indeed, I do consider the rejection of social indoctrination and critical examination in opposition to socialization in imaginary assertions to be superior to merely accepting the things we are told. Yes, I consider critical examination and demands for evidence to be superior to a fantasy of an invisible man who will somehow make a list, check it twice, finding out who's naughty or nice, and send the nice folks to an invisible paradise while sending the naughty folks to eternal torturous agony because he loves them.
Yes, it does take a certain sort of gullibility to believe that there actually is such an invisible man out there that you are going to meet when you die.
Joe Hinman said...
" people's personal histories you known nothing about "
--Your bio is publicly available on Amazon, and you have shared a number of personal historical details here and on other blogs.
So, for me to know nothing about your personal history would require that you provided all false personal information to Amazon and you have provided all false personal information here.
Have you falsified your personal information on Amazon and here?
August 01, 2017 10:26 PM
a thing that is not changing
I challenge the idea that there can be such a thing. Or, at the least, if there were such a thing - we'd never know it. It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it. Therefore, everything of which we have empirical knowledge has been changed by our knowing of its existence.
Stardusty: "You apparently consider your mode of thinking to be higher in some sense than that of skeptics"
Based on the collective interactions I've had with self-described skeptics, I do indeed believe my ability to align my views with evidence is superior to theirs. Which is sad, because self-described skeptics are the ones who claim to uphold this manner of thinking as a virtue.
Stardusty: " I do consider the rejection of social indoctrination and critical examination in opposition to socialization in imaginary assertions to be superior to merely accepting the things we are told."
These two categories, even if they were the only two options, do not neatly align with theism and non-theism. If they did, I wouldn't be a theist, and self-described skeptics wouldn't be so gullible due to their ironclad faith in their own powers of reason.
Stardusty: "Yes, I consider critical examination and demands for evidence to be superior to a fantasy of an invisible man who will somehow make a list, check it twice, finding out who's naughty or nice, and send the nice folks to an invisible paradise while sending the naughty folks to eternal torturous agony because he loves them."
Another thing I love about self-described skeptics is their childish caricatures of their opponents' viewpoints, rather than engaging them on what the other actually believes and why. It's quite easy to understand why they do this, as the arrogance of self-described skeptics does not permit any allowance of intellectual charity for someone who disagrees with them. Based on its representatives, skepticism seems to be largely defined by immaturity, both intellectual and emotional.
Stardusty: "Yes, it does take a certain sort of gullibility to believe that there actually is such an invisible man out there that you are going to meet when you die."
Rather, it takes a certain amount of critical thinking skills to realize the plain truth that atheism is not tenable as a description of reality, based on utter lack of supporting evidence, and that "just because" is somehow a superior worldview. I'm mesmerized by such powerful reasoning skills, yes sir.
I'm waiting for a self-described skeptic who is capable of employing his chosen virtues. Does such a person exist, or are they all simply not interested in an online presence? Because I've yet to encounter one.
@Strawdusty,
" It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out."
--I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article
Thank you for summarizing what I have observed from you.
You really don't understand nor even care to understand any of the views you think you are criticizing. As a result, you end up criticizing arguments you have made up in your head when you aren't engaged in ad hominem, genetic or the other numerous fallacies you commit every time you post.
This also explains why you imagine you have addressed any objections. Strawdusty Translation: "I don't understand the objections and don't much care to so there!" 😛
Mortal said: "It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it."
In Quantum physics, it has been observed that some types observation change subatomic particles. Some scientific measuring techniques are, in fact, invasive. However, this is not a fundamental principle nor true of all observations.
Oozzie,
I'll go out on a limb here and double down on my comment. Let's say there's some distant galaxy out there, 200 million light years away, and the Hubble Space Telescope takes a picture of it. In order for it to have done so, it must interrupt the flow of a defined subset of the photons streaming from that galaxy, which otherwise would have continued on unimpeded. You have changed what otherwise would have been an undisturbed system. (I am, of course, here defining a galaxy as not only the stars themselves that make it up, but also all particles (and waves) emanating from those stars.)
I realize that this is the most tenuous of changes, but nevertheless, a change has been effectuated by the observation.
The flow of photons would have hit the ground behind the observer anyway. More like double or nothing.
Mortal said...
SP a thing that is not changing
" I challenge the idea that there can be such a thing."
--Very well then, you win that challenge.
" Or, at the least, if there were such a thing - we'd never know it. It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it. Therefore, everything of which we have empirical knowledge has been changed by our knowing of its existence."
--Indeed, and I must say I am a bit uplifted by your insightful analysis. I encourage you to continue along these lines.
The notion of an unchanging thing is an approximation. It is an apparent lack of change at our perceptual level. That is the sort of thing A-T apologists do. I address that level of analysis by stating that an unchanging thing does not call for a changer.
The A-T apologist will attempt to argue with a hand, a stick, and a rock. For these gross oversimplifications the A-T apologist goes on to rather shallow and demonstrably false arguments.
But let's consider your point more carefully. Suppose an electron, at this time considered to be a fundamental particle, is traveling in uniform motion and unobserved. Is it changing? Well, changing what? It's mass/energy content is not changing. It's kinetic energy is not changing. So in those respects, at least ideally, the electron is not changing.
Now suppose we wish to observe this electron. As you correctly point out, to observe it we must change it. What sort of change? Suppose we fire another electron at it expecting the fired electron to hit a detector in a particular location if the fired electron travels freely. But the fired electron does not travel freely, rather, it interacts with our previously unobserved electron and is deflected, thus impacting the detector at a different location which indicates something got in the way.
Is this a temporal causal series? The fired electron takes time to travel from the emitter to the observed electron. Since they are both negatively charged their fields begin to interact at some distance apart, and that interaction grows stronger and stronger as they grow nearer. Over time kinetic energy is transferred in a process, much like in a gravity assist trajectory of a spacecraft.
Therefore, this is clearly a temporal process, and thus "accidental".
Every causal series is "accidental". Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to 0, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal.
Thus, no causal series is "essential" in the A-T usage of the term. Only crude approximations and shallow causal analysis lead the A-T apologist to make the gravely mistaken assertion of any "essential" causal series.
Mortal, if you would care to examine such considerations further please read through my above posted series very carefully, and continue to apply your detailed analytical techniques.
If you can identify any errors in those 5 posts of July 26 I would very much appreciate it if you would point them out to me.
August 02, 2017 6:54 AM
miller said...
@Strawdusty,
" It seems you don't understand what the article is pointing out."
--I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article
" Thank you for summarizing what I have observed from you."
" You really don't understand nor even care to understand any of the views you think you are criticizing."
--You have it back to front. It is precisely because I do understand that I do not much care about the misunderstandings you and Feser express.
When I hear garbled nonsense I understand that it is garbled nonsense and I do not much care about garbled nonsense.
You and Feser express a very great deal of garbled nonsense.
But by all means, please do carefully examine my 5 posts of July 26 and point out whatever errors you can identify.
August 02, 2017 8:19 AM
oozzielionel said...
" Some scientific measuring techniques are, in fact, invasive. However, this is not a fundamental principle nor true of all observations."
August 02, 2017 12:03 PM
Name one.
Mortal is correct on this point.
Another thing I love about self-described skeptics is their childish caricatures of their opponents' viewpoints, rather than engaging them on what the other actually believes and why. It's quite easy to understand why they do this, as the arrogance of self-described skeptics does not permit any allowance of intellectual charity for someone who disagrees with them. Based on its representatives, skepticism seems to be largely defined by immaturity, both intellectual and emotional.
two thumbs up
Consider the observation by the Keck observatory around 2015 of the galaxy EGS-zs8-1, as described here:
http://www.keckobservatory.org/recent/entry/scientists_at_keck_measure_farthest_galaxy_ever
This galaxy is about 13 billion light years from us.
Okay then.
This, the light from 13 billion light years away (and ago) hits the CCD of the telescope, along with many, many other photons from the same source that hit other locations on earth, or that pass us by.
How is the telescope invasive? It is, to the light that strikes it. it DEFINITELY is NOT invasive from the viewpoint of the thing observed through the medium of the photons, that is, the galaxy that sourced that light.
So. All measurements are invasive, but some of these are invasive of the MEDIUM of the observation rather than invasive of the THING WE OBSERVE THROUGH the medium.
So, now that is clarified, you can either sit back, or go on arguing semantics: your choice.
or go on arguing semantics
When all is said and done, ALL argument is about semantics.
@Strawdusty,
--You have it back to front. It is precisely because I do understand that I do not much care about the misunderstandings you and Feser express.
I just demonstrated how you misunderstood the point of the article. I guess you don't understand that either.
As for the rest of your incoherent posts here, I've already pointed out their deficiencies at Dr Feser's blog long before you drug them over here.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Yes, I consider critical examination and demands for evidence to be superior to a fantasy of an invisible man who will somehow make a list, check it twice, finding out who's naughty or nice, and send the nice folks to an invisible paradise while sending the naughty folks to eternal torturous agony because he loves them."
" Another thing I love about self-described skeptics is their childish caricatures of their opponents' viewpoints, rather than engaging them on what the other actually believes and why. "
--The Christian god is a person, a mind, a being, even for a time literally a man. He is invisible. Therefore, to believe in him is to literally believe in an invisible man.
He does, according to Christian doctrine, keep track of all the thoughts and all the deeds of all the people who have ever lived. He does in fact categorize those thoughts as either acceptable or not acceptable.
He does in fact reward, it is believed, the acceptable ones with heaven and the unacceptable ones with hell.
God is said to love all, so presumably the ones he sends to hell are also loved.
"their childish caricatures"
--You have it back to front again. The caricature is accurate. The fact that it sounds childish exposes the childish nature of the Christian beliefs.
August 02, 2017 7:17 AM
Blogger bmiller said...
" I just demonstrated how you misunderstood the point of the article. I guess you don't understand that either."
--No, you claimed, but in your view to make a claim is to make a demonstration.
You have completely failed to show that my statements are incorrect and you have completely failed to show that my comprehensive arguments fail to negate the call for a first mover.
" As for the rest of your incoherent posts here, I've already pointed out their deficiencies at Dr Feser's blog long before you drug them over here."
--So, you claim to have negated my series of 5 posts here with some scattered quips over there. Typical theistic misdirection. You fail to provide a comprehensive point by point negation here and just wave your arms about pointing vaguely elsewhere.
I wrote a 3 part critique of a Feser article you have not responded to at all.
Billy did not respond in any meaningful way either. Neither one of you is capable, obviously.
Billy August 1, 2017 at 5:54 AM
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
"You have misunderstood both Aristotelian Thomism, "
"and scientific laws themselves."
"All I will do is repeat my question, "
"and lets hope this gets some gears churning for you:"
--That is a typical theistic diversionary tactic.
1.Can't rebut any arguments on the merits.
2.Simply declare "you got it all wrong"
3.Repeat a question already covered.
4.Pretend like you possess some great knowledge you are about to educate me in by asking a question.
I then wrote a much longer piece based on my rebuttal there and various other posts, arguments, and Feser lectures.
Summarized here:
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Details Here:
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
You have not presented any sound counter arguments to that either, or even attempted to form any logical cohesive step by step rebuttals. You obviously do not know how.
August 03, 2017 5:10 AM
Stardusty: "Therefore, to believe in him is to literally believe in an invisible man."
A man is a human male. God is not a human male. Even Christ is not a human male. Thus, calling God an "invisible man" is flat-out inaccurate. Not that conforming the description of an opponent's views to facts actually matters to a self-described skeptic. Much easier to attack strawmen.
Stardusty: "He does, according to Christian doctrine, keep track of all the thoughts and all the deeds of all the people who have ever lived. He does in fact categorize those thoughts as either acceptable or not acceptable.
He does in fact reward, it is believed, the acceptable ones with heaven and the unacceptable ones with hell."
Well, you have now exposed the shallowness of your knowledge of Christian doctrine.
Stardusty: "The caricature is accurate."
The caricature exposes a profound ignorance as to why people believe in God by the ridiculous comparison to Santa. That's on the same argumentative level as "If men evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" It's facepalm material.
William said...
" How is the telescope invasive? "
--To make the measurement the object had to change. The telescope did not change the star. Without a change in the star we would not be able to use a telescope to detect it.
The telescope does, however, change the radiation from the star.
" So. All measurements are invasive, but some of these are invasive of the MEDIUM of the observation rather than invasive of the THING WE OBSERVE THROUGH the medium."
--The object itself had to change in order to make the measurement. Whether the object changed a nanosecond ago or 10 billion years ago is a quantitative, not qualitative difference.
" It is a fundamental principle of contemporary science that all observations have an effect on the thing being observed, i.e., it changes it. Therefore, everything of which we have empirical knowledge has been changed by our knowing of its existence.
August 02, 2017 6:54 AM"
--In this Mortal was considering an active human probing, such as when we shine a light on something to see it.
More generally all observations require that an object was changed. So, to generalize, it is not that our knowing of it caused the change, rather, for us to know about it some change must have occurred.
August 03, 2017 12:05 AM
@Strawdusty,
" I just demonstrated how you misunderstood the point of the article. I guess you don't understand that either."
--No, you claimed, but in your view to make a claim is to make a demonstration.
Clearly I'm correct that you didn't understand and don't care. After I showed you what the point of the argument was and how your analysis was wrong, you merely replied:
"--I don't much care what you or Feser think is being pointed out in the article,
As for your claim that I did not respond to the nonsense you drug over from Dr Feser's blog, that is simply false. You didn't choose to respond and make corrections over there, so I don't expect anything different here.
Regarding your posts to Billy, I agree with him that you don't understand what you think you are criticizing, as you've shown here wrt inertia being a "state" (which btw was from that series of posts).
While I didn't insert myself into your dialog with Billy, I did address your notion of conservation laws wrt to modern physics. It's clear that you don't understand Noether's theorem or reject it since you claimed it was:
"--No, that is just a setup for your tautology."
Seems you think Aquinas and Noether are conspiring against you. ☺
Dusty:
More generally all observations require that an object was changed. So, to generalize, it is not that our knowing of it caused the change, rather, for us to know about it some change must have occurred.
--------------------------------
Well, yes, sort of.
A galaxy makes its light. Not everything makes its own light.
To personally make an observation, we need to activate some sensory pathway, and our sensory pathways work via changes at their receptor interfaces.
But what we are studying may not be the thing that changes. For example, we may monitor a light beam through something transparent. We may record that it is still transparent -- this is an observation -- by recording that the beam of light still passes through it the same way. This, again, shows that sometimes the changes that are required for us to make an observation are not ALWAYS a change in the thing we are actually studying. Sometimes all the changes are in the MEDIUM via which we observe.
so, to change slightly what you said:
For us to know about it some change must have occurred (in at least something related).
Blogger William said...
" This, again, shows that sometimes the changes that are required for us to make an observation are not ALWAYS a change in the thing we are actually studying."
August 03, 2017 7:44 PM
--Nope, sorry, I wish you were correct, but your are wrong. A very great many hours have been spent trying to figure out a way around the Observer Effect. Elaborate schemes of coherent or entangled particles and observation of one without affecting the the have been considered.
But, as it turns out, observing a thing necessarily requires a change in the thing being observed.
You can start here if you wish to:
Observer effect (physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Therefore, to believe in him is to literally believe in an invisible man."
" A man is a human male."
--Not when its a god man. Your god man talks to people like a man, thinks like a man, gets jealous like a man, kills like a man, made a baby with a woman...if it walks like a duck...
SP He does in fact reward, it is believed, the acceptable ones with heaven and the unacceptable ones with hell."
" Well, you have now exposed the shallowness of your knowledge of Christian doctrine."
--How? That is just what he is said to do. If you find that difficult to accept then you should find Christianity difficult to accept.
Stardusty: "The caricature is accurate."
" The caricature exposes a profound ignorance as to why people believe in God by the ridiculous comparison to Santa."
--There's this guy, dontchyaknow, who nobody can see, but he knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good so for Christsakes already be good!!!
This guy, the one nobody can see, is keeping track of things. If you do the right things you will get good things from this invisible guy, but if you do the wrong things you will get crummy things from this guy.
God/Santa...which? The description fits both.
Santa is nicer though. God is a killer and a torturer. Santa just gives you a lump of coal.
August 03, 2017 7:07 AM
miller said...
" Regarding your posts to Billy, I agree with him that you don't understand what you think you are criticizing,"
--Ha Ha Ha. What a pathetic excuse for lack of logical argumentation..
August 03, 2017 8:22 AM
Stardusty: "Not when its a god man"
Sure, and the napkin holder in front of me is a napkin holder man, so it is also a man just like me. It is accurate to call it a man, because I said so.
Or, we can acknowledge how absurd "god man" is, and admit that it is factually incorrect to call God a man.
Oh yes, I forgot. Self-described skeptics do not admit when they are wrong, perhaps are not even capable of acknowledging being wrong, unless it is a misquote.
Dusty: As long as you are using Wikipedia as a source (and I will be charitable and assume you more or less understand the references), try to understand how separable states can be related to the observer effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entanglement_witness
Consider what happens when the object is separable until it changes, at which point it becomes temporarily entangled with the medium of observation. In this situation we can observe a lack of change in the object via the entanglement witness matrix of the medium, with lack of change in the object indicated by the state of the entanglement matrix remaining strictly in the separable range.
@Strawdusty,
--Ha Ha Ha. What a pathetic excuse for lack of logical argumentation..
Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses (even the ones in my last post). I do find that amusing.
But I really like it when you try to engage. Then we get to hear how water does not have the potential to freeze and how present tense really means past tense and how I wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles.
Stardusty,
Your Santa to God analogy has the cart before the horse. We don't believe in God because He resembles Santa. The Santa story came about as an analogy to God. Quite the reverse of your take on the matter.
So the existence of the Santa myth is actually evidence for the existence of God.
Mortal said...
" The Santa story came about as an analogy to God."
--Right, they are highly analogous and contain many of the same elements. That is my point, glad you agree.
" So the existence of the Santa myth is actually evidence for the existence of God."
--Deriving one myth from another myth provides no evidence for the first myth. What kind of reasoning is that? I had high hopes you would begin to apply careful rational examination, but your are having a relapse to irrationality here.
The god story and the Santa story are very similar, except Santa is much kinder, with god being a vicious torturer.
August 04, 2017 6:53 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" Or, we can acknowledge how absurd "god man" is, and admit that it is factually incorrect to call God a man."
--Perhaps in your mind you have moved away from the personification of god, but gods have traditionally been men, or sometimes women, or even animals.
In Christian artwork god is depicted as a man, and thought of as a man very commonly. Jesus often spoke of his father. God made Adam in his image. One may go to heaven and sit at the right hand of god.
The imagination of god as a man in heaven is widespread among Christians and goes back to the days of the Greeks and Romans who had many personified gods.
August 04, 2017 1:33 AM
William said...
" In this situation we can observe a lack of change in the object via the entanglement witness matrix of the medium, with lack of change in the object indicated by the state of the entanglement matrix remaining strictly in the separable range."
August 04, 2017 2:54 AM
--Wow, your copy and paste skill make you seem really super smart.
Stardusty: "Perhaps in your mind you have moved away from the personification of god"
By definition, the object of personification is not human, thus is neither a man nor a woman. If God is being personified, it means he's not a man.
Stardusty: "The imagination of god as a man in heaven is widespread among Christians and goes back to the days of the Greeks and Romans who had many personified gods."
And the Bible flat out says that God is not a man, but a spirit. Any Christian who thinks of God as a man is not correct, as a man is a human male and not a spirit. God is not a human male, by definition, and to say otherwise is to be incorrect. Even Christ is not a human male, no matter what the artwork depicts, as he (currently) has a physical nature different than any human male.
This is a good example of one of the reasons I shake my head any time a self-described skeptic asks for my evidence or arguments for God. The futility is overwhelming, no matter the situation. If the simple fact that God is not a human male is too difficult a concept to comprehend, then the self-described skeptic has no hope of comprehending the arguments for God.
If the self-described skeptic is psychologically incapable of recognizing or admitting being wrong over something as obvious (and relatively trivial) as God not being a human male, then he will also be incapable of rationally analyzing an argument for which he has already staked an emotional position against.
And finally, if the self-described skeptic is well aware of the inaccuracy of his caricature yet insists upon using it anyway for whatever reason, then he is not mature enough to engage as an adult.
bmiller said...
" Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses "
--What responses? You through out a few offhand quips here and there.
I read an article by Feser and I wrote a 3 post critique of it with extensive logical argumentation. Neither you or Billy replied with any rational counter arguments. Billy just said "you got it all wrong" and you just said "I agree with Billy".
So I took that post, and a lot of other material and wrote a 5 post argument against an ontological first mover and negating the very idea of an "essential" causal series. Again, no rational response from you or anybody else.
So then I wrote a list of points made in the 5 post series. One poster claimed a few of the items in the summary list are wrong, so I provided specific links to the supporting arguments.
Response?
Crickets.
August 04, 2017 5:23 AM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" And the Bible flat out says that God is not a man,"
--Grab bag theology. The bible also says God the father, the right hand of god, man in god's image, and numerous such references to god as a sort of man.
The bible, of course, is not one book. It is a collection of books and letters written over some 1500 years by many different authors.
Dig around enough and you find find a quote to support damn near anything.
" fact that God is not a human male "
--Of course not. An invisible man is a special sort of man.
" And finally, if the self-described skeptic is well aware of the inaccuracy of his caricature"
--My caricatures are highly accurate and shed light on the childish nature of belief in the Christian god.
August 04, 2017 8:51 AM
Stardusty: "Grab bag theology"
The run-to shelter for a self-described skeptic when he is soundly refuted. I'm calling you on it, though. Nowhere is God called a man. You are wrong and refuse to admit it, which is pathetic.
Stardusty: "as a sort of man"
Is this the beginning of a shifting of goal posts to try and avoid the admission of being wrong? A "sort of man" is not a man.
Stardusty: "Dig around enough and you find find a quote to support damn near anything."
Except, ironically, that God is a man.
Stardusty: "An invisible man is a special sort of man."
Indeed. And God is not one, for anyone who cares about accuracy, which you claim to do elsewhere yet prove otherwise here.
Stardusty: "My caricatures are highly accurate and shed light on the childish nature of belief in the Christian god."
I have proven, with no effort, that your caricature is a childish and inaccurate misrepresentation of God, who is not childish. That you keep attempting to escape the ridiculous corner you've backed yourself into is doing yourself no favors.
God is not a man. To state otherwise is factually wrong.
Dusty,
The only copy paste was the reference. Google with quotes if you doubt this.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Grab bag theology"
" The run-to shelter for a self-described skeptic when he is soundly refuted. I'm calling you on it, though. Nowhere is God called a man."
--A father is a man. A man has a right hand. A man has a son.
Most especially we refer to a man using "he" as opposed to "it" or "she".
Stardusty: "as a sort of man"
" Is this the beginning of a shifting of goal posts to try and avoid the admission of being wrong? A "sort of man" is not a man."
--He is a sort of man in the sense of a particular kind of man, an invisible man. Obviously, an invisible man is going to have many magical qualities not like the ordinary men we meet regularly.
I can prove god is a man, just take a look, here is a picture of him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel#/media/File:Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1m.jpg
August 04, 2017 10:06 AM
William said...
" The only copy paste was the reference. Google with quotes if you doubt this."
August 04, 2017 11:01 AM
That's a relief then, so now I am sure you realize that when an object emits a photon, or any other form of matter/energy, it changes. When we try to bounce something off of something else we end up changing the thing we are trying to measure. When we absorb something in a detector so we can observe it that absorption changes the thing we are seeking to detect.
But on another subject, would you consider doing me a favor and visiting a series of posts to detect any errors in them? If you can elaborate on any flaws you find I will be forever in your debt. Unfortunately nobody here has been able to do so at all.
Summarized here:
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
Details Here:
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
Dusty: I looked at the postings you reference.
1. I agree with you that Aquinas' use of ancient Greek physics really undermines the Way arguments when read from the background of 21st century physics.
They still hold up somewhat if we extract the baby from the archaic bathwater though. One problem that you share with Aquinas in those arguments is you both make unwarranted (in my view) realist assumptions about your physics, though with different physics.
Theorizing about the world, in general, does not prove the entities entailed by our theories exist. Our theories can be wrong. Many of Aristotle's were. Yours and mine may well be.
2. God certainly can change in one sense but not in another. I doubt you can prove much by finding a contradiction based on semantic assumptions about the meaning of change in one context versus another.
Stardusty: "A father is a man. A man has a right hand. A man has a son"
Even ignoring how any male parent of any species is technically a father, not every use of father refers to biological male parents (Father is also used to indicate the originator or the creator of something, much like the Founding Fathers of the country are not biologically related to America). Not everything that has a right hand is a man, either.
Stardusty: "Most especially we refer to a man using "he" as opposed to "it" or "she"."
And a boat being referred to as "she" does not make the boat a woman. My cat's a male and is referred to as "he", but 'tain't a man.
Stardusty: "He is a sort of man in the sense of a particular kind of man, an invisible man. Obviously, an invisible man is going to have many magical qualities not like the ordinary men we meet regularly."
An invisible man would be a man (human male) with the added quality of being invisible. God does not meet this definition, as 1) if God walked in my house, I'm pretty sure I'd notice, and 2) God is not a human male. "Invisible man" is a thoughtless caricature.
Stardusty: "I can prove god is a man, just take a look, here is a picture of him:"
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an attempt at humor or an attempt at mockery, since it doesn't qualify as an argument, so I'm not going to respond directly.
@William:
"One problem that you share with Aquinas in those arguments is you both make unwarranted (in my view) realist assumptions about your physics, though with different physics."
Aquinas First Way is a metaphysical demonstration; it does not use (or can be cleaned of) any principle that is recognizably a principle of physics.
From this it follows that your understanding of the First Way is different than mine, so what are these principles that Aquinas allegedly uses?
@Strawdusty,
" Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses "
--What responses? You through out a few offhand quips here and there.
Shame on you.
You simply ignore what you can't respond to. Here was my quote you truncated:
Oh, you mean your ignoring my responses (even the ones in my last post). I do find that amusing.
You chose not to respond to the 4 issues raised in that post. How funny.
Unfortunately nobody here has been able to do so at all.
Shame on you again. They've all been addressed and you've ignored the responses.
(I apologize to Victor for this off-topic response. I wish Strawdusty would keep his comments topical and stick to one blog, but he chose not to.)
Unfortunately the responses cover 2 blogs. I'll indicate which ones with EF for Edward Feser's blog and VR for Victor Reppert's blog as shown below.
EF=https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/taking-aquinas-seriously.html
VR=https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=1 (page 1-11 and counting)
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
Strawdusty's definitions of accidentally ordered and essentially ordered series are not Thomist, but instead a product of Strawdusty's confusion.
"Ontological first mover" also your invention and illustrates your confusion first invented July 13, 2017 at 10:15 PM
Therefore a strawman has been constructed
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
cue ball and lungs Answered in depth here:
EF-July 21, 2017 at 9:27 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
Simultaneity addressed here:
VR-July 09, 2017 8:01 PM
And here:
VR-July 25, 2017 2:28 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
No Change needing a changer addressed here:
EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
Gas molecules and series addressed here:
VR-July 09, 2017 4:39 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM
VR-All items listed were addressed ad nauseum throughout 2300+ posts.
grod:
The prime mover discussion is in Aristotle's physics, not his metaphysics. That's all I am saying.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" My cat's a male and is referred to as "he", but 'tain't a man."
--Ok, what sort of male animal is god then?
" Stardusty: "I can prove god is a man, just take a look, here is a picture of him:"
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an attempt at humor or an attempt at mockery, since it doesn't qualify as an argument, so I'm not going to respond directly.
--How unfortunate.
SP "So you make up a lot of elaborate hide and go seek fantasies about the invisible man who is going to make you live forever in paradise but is nowhere to be seen here and now."
July 29, 2017 10:44 PM
The invisible man is a fantasy. That fantasy has been rendered by artists for centuries. The ancients believed in many such men, never visible, but imagined to be real nevertheless.
Like fantasies in general, it does not have to make analytical sense. Perhaps you refer to god as "it" by consideration of a more diffuse view of god for yourself.
@William:
"The prime mover discussion is in Aristotle's physics, not his metaphysics. That's all I am saying."
Aristotle's book pf Physics is for the most part, what we today call metaphysics, having very little in common with anything resembling modern physics.
Anyway, if that is all you mean, there is nothing for me to add, whether in agreement or disagreement.
William said...
Dusty: I looked at the postings you reference.
1. I agree with you that Aquinas' use of ancient Greek physics really undermines the Way arguments when read from the background of 21st century physics.
--Thus, the First Way is an invalid and unsound argument in light of 21st century knowledge.
" They still hold up somewhat if we extract the baby from the archaic bathwater though. One problem that you share with Aquinas in those arguments is you both make unwarranted (in my view) realist assumptions about your physics, though with different physics."
--So, perhaps I am god and you are just a figment of my divine imagination. I do not plan to hold my breath on the notion that air is not real.
" Theorizing about the world, in general, does not prove the entities entailed by our theories exist. Our theories can be wrong. Many of Aristotle's were. Yours and mine may well be."
--Indeed, Aquinas did not solve the great existential riddle. Nobody has.
" 2. God certainly can change in one sense but not in another. I doubt you can prove much by finding a contradiction based on semantic assumptions about the meaning of change in one context versus another."
August 04, 2017 12:03 PM
--I can logically prove that the arguments of Aquinas are logically invalid, as well as being unsound for several more reasons.
I cannot prove how or why all of existence came to be as it is. Nobody ever has and published such a proof into general circulation.
I am not here to assert I have the answer to the great existential riddle. I am here to conclusively logically prove that Aquinas did not provide such an answer.
bmiller said...
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
Strawdusty's definitions of accidentally ordered and essentially ordered series are not Thomist, but instead a product of Strawdusty's confusion.
"Ontological first mover" also your invention and illustrates your confusion
August 04, 2017 12:48 PM
--Typical non-response. All say here is "you're wrong". My definitions come from a variety of sources including Feser, the OP, and others. You are incapable of pointing out on this thread or any other thread what specifically is both right and wrong about my definitions in Thomistic terms and the associated modern terms I used I used in conjunction.
If you can't even argue with any specificity on the definitions of the terms there is no hope your further comments are of any rational merit.
Stardusty: "Ok, what sort of male animal is god then?"
As this question doesn't logically proceed from anything that's been said, I admit to some confusion as to its presence.
Stardusty: "The invisible man is a fantasy."
On that we agree, though of course God is not an invisible man and to reduce him to that is inept.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Ok, what sort of male animal is god then?"
" As this question doesn't logically proceed from anything that's been said, I admit to some confusion as to its presence."
--You cited your male cat as an example of the use of the masculine pronoun in reference to something other than a man. True, it can be applied to other animals that are of the male sex. So, what sort of animal of the male sex is "He"?
Stardusty: "The invisible man is a fantasy."
" On that we agree, though of course God is not an invisible man and to reduce him to that is inept."
--Ok, Michelangelo, and all those who's mental image of god he rendered, was and are inept. Rationally, on the subject of god, at last we agree.
August 04, 2017 2:13 PM
Stardusty: "True, it can be applied to other animals that are of the male sex. So, what sort of animal of the male sex is "He"?"
What species is a ship, which is often referred to as "she"?
God is neither man nor animal. "Father" is apt due to being the creator, being the head of the godhood, and as symbolic of the relationship between God and man. It does not mean God is a man. I'm surprised you're digging your heels in on something about which you are so obviously incorrect, and it's such a relatively trivial point to begin with.
Stardusty: "Ok, Michelangelo, and all those who's mental image of god he rendered, was and are inept. Rationally, on the subject of god, at last we agree."
A couple things. One, I couldn't care less what Michelangelo or those who commissioned his work thought God looked like.
And two, when I look at his paintings, I can see the figure representing God. He isn't invisible, so he STILL isn't an invisible man. Only in the strawman representations of self-described skeptics is "invisible man" a common description of God. And they haven't proven to be much of an authority on the subject.
Legion of Logic said...
" A couple things. One, I couldn't care less what Michelangelo or those who commissioned his work thought God looked like."
--Well, if you only want to consider your own concept of god, ok, you can do that. It seems like a rather narrow approach. I, for one, have no intention of limiting my comments to your particular concept of god.
My comments will be more or less applicable to various people depending on the form they imagine god to have, if any.
" And two, when I look at his paintings, I can see the figure representing God. He isn't invisible, so he STILL isn't an invisible man. "
--Besides being invisible he is also magic, dontchyaknow. He magically makes himself visible on special occasions, but most of the time he is invisible.
"Only in the strawman representations of self-described skeptics is "invisible man" a common description of God."
--No, actually people have thought of gods as men for a very long time. Some cultures think these god men come to Earth and do things like have sex with Earth women to make god babies.
Some people even today think god is a man, this man or that man, like David Koresh, Sathya Sai Baba, and a seemingly unlimited string of such god men, such as in India where that is literally what they are called, god men.
Part of this notion of god as a man starts at childhood with the artwork and iconography of god as a man so prevalent in Christianity. I very much grew up with an idea of god as a man, based on the language of the stories that were told to me and the images that were said to be of god. Everybody was always telling stories about him, how he appeared to people, had conversations with people, how he is a father, how he is a he. Naturally I thought of god as a man, what else is a child to think with all that going on?
But the very idea of a god at all is fundamentally childish so I rejected all forms of theism when I became old enough to think for myself.
Just try calling god "she" to a bunch of Christians, I mean, fireworks time. Now, objectively, if "he" is just a placeholder pronoun "she" should do just as well. No dice, nope, not gonna fly. God is a man and "everybody" knows it.
Stardusty: "Besides being invisible he is also magic, dontchyaknow. He magically makes himself visible on special occasions, but most of the time he is invisible."
My choices are to deal with whatever you make up, which while amusing is hardly worthwhile, or to abandon this discussion as yet another pointless interaction of no substance with a self-described skeptic.
"Most of the time he is invisible", you literally made that up.
Stardusty: "No, actually people have thought of gods as men for a very long time."
We are having separate conversations, as other gods are utterly irrelevant.
Stardusty: "I very much grew up with an idea of god as a man, based on the language of the stories that were told to me and the images that were said to be of god."
I have never, at any point in my life, had God described to me as a man. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the nature of man is not the nature of God. Maybe your upbringing is why you have such radically different conceptions of God than I do.
Stardusty: "But the very idea of a god at all is fundamentally childish"
Bravo.
Stardusty: "Just try calling god "she" to a bunch of Christians, I mean, fireworks time."
And I've seriously ticked off some atheists and been called an arrogant bastard by asking why I should care about the opinion of a bunch of apes. Presentation has a lot to do with the reaction, as presumably none of them would otherwise deny being apes according to biological classification.
God is called the Father, which is a masculine connotation. Given that God is never implied to be a biological entity, he is obviously neither man nor animal as we know them, but all of tradition and all references use "Father" and not "Mother". Christ was a man, not a woman.
So really, the only reason to say "she" when referring to God is to stir crap up, and it's no surprise that it works. "She is the Father" makes the speaker sound like an idiot, but a quick "she" thrown in without Father is a good troll technique.
just try calling [G]od "she"
The Old Testament prophets, especially Isaiah, frequently referred to God in the feminine, and Jesus does at least once.
I need to apologize to Stardusty. I just learned (the hard way) that my Google Chromebook does have function keys. I accidentally turned my screen display into a negative by pressing shift/H/and the key above shift (instead of just shift/H), and had to call Google support to find out how to turn it back to normal. The (very helpful) support rep explained to me that there were all sorts of hidden function keys on my keyboard. They're just not labeled like they are on "normal" keyboards.
I repent in dust and ashes.
Legion of Logic said...
" And I've seriously ticked off some atheists and been called an arrogant bastard by asking why I should care about the opinion of a bunch of apes"
--Heh, heh, heh :-) That's a good one, you should use that more often!
You need to hang out with a better class of atheist, those ones are acting like a bunch of gorillas!
" So really, the only reason to say "she" when referring to God is to stir crap up, and it's no surprise that it works."
--See what I mean? "Everybody" knows god is a man. Anybody who refers to him as a woman is just a troublemaker!
" "She is the Father" makes the speaker sound like an idiot,"
--Fine, then say "she is the mother", same same, right?
" but a quick "she" thrown in without Father is a good troll technique."
--Referring to the Christian god as "she" exposes the fact that Christians are not sex neutral about their god as they claim. Christians strongly associate god with the male sex. If they did not they would just as easily accept reference to god as a mother, but they don't. The sex prejudice of the average Christian is so strong that to even suggest their god is actually a she makes one a "troll" even in the view of a supposedly god sex neutral Christian.
August 04, 2017 11:59 PM
Mortal said...
just try calling [G]od "she"
" The Old Testament prophets, especially Isaiah, frequently referred to God in the feminine, and Jesus does at least once."
August 05, 2017 4:32 AM
I never heard that from any source. Do you have the books, chapters, and verses?
Mortal said...
" I need to apologize to Stardusty. I just learned (the hard way) that my Google Chromebook does have function keys.
I repent in dust and ashes."
August 05, 2017 5:45 AM
--Not good enough, you have to do 25 Hail Dawkinses plus perform a burnt offering, to the not god of nothing, of a Quran.
Besides, it was the control key, Ctrl, that I kept talking about, not the function keys.
Too lazy to look up more examples, but check out Isaiah 66:13 and Luke 13:34.
But perhaps the most striking example is Ecclesiasticus 24:24 (which you won't find in Protestant Bibles). This is God Himself speaking: "I am the mother of beautiful love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope."
Stardusty Psyche said...
bmiller said...
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
Strawdusty's definitions of accidentally ordered and essentially ordered series are not Thomist, but instead a product of Strawdusty's confusion.
"Ontological first mover" also your invention and illustrates your confusion
August 04, 2017 12:48 PM
--Besides being non-responsive about the definitions of "essential" series and "accidental" series you are also wrong in your vague criticism of my definition of "ontological cause"
You are so enamored of Edward Feser (not to be confused with Edwards, the surname of a critic), so here is something he wrote on the subject:
"Edwards does realize that Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all."
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
Clearly Feser is calling the first mover of the First Way the first cause, in what Feser says is not the temporal sense, rather, Feser says in the ontological sense.
Thus by the words of your own preferred expert, the first mover of the First Way is an ontological cause, a sustaining cause of the world here and now in this moment.
But I have no intention of taking Feser as a sole source. I did some research into the word "essential" regarding its similarity to "essence", as well as its common meaning in the sense of necessary. Ontology in general refers to being, which explains why Feser would call a cause of being an ontological cause, while others call the causal series of the First Way an "essential" causal series in the Thomistic sense, in which simultaneity of causes and effects are imagined.
So here is what I said:
**An ontological cause, in this sense, is also essential in the sense of regarding the essence, or being. Thus, an ontological cause is a sustaining cause, a cause for the very existence in each moment of the object and of the effect, without which the effect would cease to exist and the object would cease to exist.**
Yet your response is to call my words merely "your invention and illustrates your confusion".
So by all means, please do explain in specific detail just exactly what I have "invented" and where and how and why I am so "confused".
Mortal said...
" Too lazy to look up more examples, but check out Isaiah 66:13 and Luke 13:34.
But perhaps the most striking example is Ecclesiasticus 24:24 (which you won't find in Protestant Bibles). This is God Himself speaking: "I am the mother of beautiful love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope.""
August 05, 2017 7:03 AM
--So god is gender fluid. That's not just a regressive left snowflake boys in the girls room talking point after all!
Does rather shoot down your insistence that God is a man, however.
@Strawdusty,
So by all means, please do explain in specific detail just exactly what I have "invented" and where and how and why I am so "confused".
You did not quote anyone using the term "Ontological first mover" since that is your invention. You confuse the fact that material things exist as a combination of form and matter with the fact that they are sometimes in local motion.
The First Way derives the Unmoved Mover from the fact that we observe at least one thing moving. Any movement happening now will ultimately be traced to the Unmoved Mover.
But this was all explained here:
EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
Now a material object may be perceived to be in motion or not. If it is perceived to be in motion, then the cause of that motion will terminate with the Unmoved Mover. If it is not perceived to be in motion, then it is outside of the scope of the First Way. In both cases however, there must be an explanation of how material things came into being as a combination of form and matter, continue to exist in that combination and pass away. So in both cases, an ontological cause is needed.
Regarding your quote from the Feser blog post and your definitions. It seems you entirely missed the point of it all since you address simultaneity and temporal aspects rather than the instrumental character of an essentially ordered series.
So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first.
But again this was pointed out here:
EF-July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
I even linked to a video with time stamps that discusses all of this.
But why plug up this combox with this off-topic stuff? You had your chance over at Feser's blog.
What way too many people fail to understand is that creation was not a one time event that happened at some point in the past. It is a continuous process, ongoing at all times and in all places. St. Paul expressed this eloquently: "In [Christ] all things were created ... He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (note the present tense in the final clause)
The author of Hebrews wrote much the same thing: "In these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, ... through whom he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power." (again, the present tense)
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
So by all means, please do explain in specific detail just exactly what I have "invented" and where and how and why I am so "confused".
" You did not quote anyone using the term "Ontological first mover" "
--You don't follow simple logic very well, do you? I told you how that term is accurate. Did you intentionally ignore or are you daft?
The First Way asserts a first mover. Feser and others assert this is first not in the temporal sense, rather in the ontological sense. On that assertion then the First Way is asserting an ontological first mover.
Worse for your carefully honed misreading skills, the term "ontological first mover" does not appear in my definition of ontological cause.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting my words or are you just that bad at reading and reasoning?
" But this was all explained here:
EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM"
" Now a material object may be perceived to be in motion or not. If it is perceived to be in motion, then the cause of that motion will terminate with the Unmoved Mover. If it is not perceived to be in motion, then it is outside of the scope of the First Way. In both cases however, there must be an explanation of how material things came into being as a combination of form and matter, continue to exist in that combination and pass away. So in both cases, an ontological cause is needed."
--Rarely have I seen such a mass of confusion, but then, that is your forte.
If we are considering the existence of the stuff an object is made of there is no need to arrive at a first mover on the assertion of an eternal universe, which both Aristotle and Aquinas acknowledged could not be logically disproved.
If we are considering the forces behind the shape of the object there is a need to arrive at a fundamental physics, the fundamental properties of the most fundamental sorts of stuff. This is not a mover, because a mover is a changer, whereas a force does not necessarily change anything, and on no change there is no call for first changer. Further, there is no reason to suppose these forces need be not natural in origin on an eternal universe.
If we are considering the motion of an object the cause of the motion is necessarily temporal, which need not lead to a temporal first mover on an eternal universe, and in any case is irrelevant to an ontological first cause, or ontological cause, or ontological first mover.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the notion that motion somehow leads to the conclusion of a first structural force set, what you rather archaically refer to as "form". To argue for a first form force, motion is irrelevant and demonstrates nothing one way or the other.
It is a truly bizarre mental process that argues beginning with apparent motion, calls that change, and from there concludes fundamental structural forces based on form. That is simply a cognitive disconnect on your part.
The First Way is an argument from motion, not an argument from form.
If Aquinas had wanted to argue from form he could have said "The first and more manifest way is the argument from form. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things have form."
You are just trying a conflated, bait and switch, confused jumble of disjointed notions.
" Regarding your quote from the Feser blog post and your definitions. It seems you entirely missed the point of it all since you address simultaneity and temporal aspects rather than the instrumental character of an essentially ordered series."
--Lie. The word instrumental is in my definition and I address it further in that series.
" But why plug up this combox with this off-topic stuff? "
--Post wherever you prefer, nobody is stopping you.
August 05, 2017 11:09 AM
Mortal said...
" What way too many people fail to understand is that creation was not a one time event that happened at some point in the past. It is a continuous process, ongoing at all times and in all places. "
August 05, 2017 11:56 AM
So what is being created? I'm sitting here and I don't see any new stuff popping up. What a strange notion, that things are being continuously created.
@Strawdusty,
" You did not quote anyone using the term "Ontological first mover" "
--You don't follow simple logic very well, do you? I told you how that term is accurate. Did you intentionally ignore or are you daft?
And I disagreed that it was accurate because the term demonstrates your conflation of ontology with motion. If you read and understood my reply you would see why I disagreed.
Worse for your carefully honed misreading skills, the term "ontological first mover" does not appear in my definition of ontological cause.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting my words or are you just that bad at reading and reasoning?
I did not say it was part of your definition. I said the term was your invention. You used it July 26, 2017 11:38 PM.
Please read my responses more carefully.
--Rarely have I seen such a mass of confusion, but then, that is your forte.
....
If Aquinas had wanted to argue from form he could have said "The first and more manifest way is the argument from form. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things have form."
You are just trying a conflated, bait and switch, confused jumble of disjointed notions.
I'm sorry that you don't take my advice to read the links I provide for you. The very first comment from the "David Haines' Defense of Aquinas' First Way" (January 21, 2017 6:45 PM) post contains a link to the Summa Contra Gentiles. There are about 37 almost single sentence sections that explain what I summarized here. One more time, the link is HERE.
Will you actually read it now? Probably not. But then don't complain that you can't understand what I'm talking about.
Regardless, I've already addressed the argument you attempt to use to disprove the First Way here:
EF-July 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
This seems to be the gist of your argument:
1) Things that don't change do not require a changer.
2) Some things do not change.
3) Therefore there is no need of an ultimate Unchanged Changer.
Here was my reply:
1) The First Way does not address things that don't change. The first premise only requires the observation that something is changing and that could be only 1 thing. So the fact that some things do not change is irrelevant to the argument.
2) So in order to defeat the First Way, it must be demonstrated that nothing is moving or has ever moved.
3) But even if that could be demonstrated (per impossible since demonstration would be change) the question of "why are there things?", the ontological cause, could still be asked and still would still lead to God.
" Regarding your quote from the Feser blog post and your definitions. It seems you entirely missed the point of it all since you address simultaneity and temporal aspects rather than the instrumental character of an essentially ordered series."
--Lie. The word instrumental is in my definition and I address it further in that series.
You used the word twice in the July 26, 2017 11:32 PM post and never again. None of your agrumentation focused on mere instrumentality of the movers in the series at all.
This was your incorrect definition:
Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous.
This was the quote from Dr Feser I just linked to:
So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first.
So you can see that your definition is simply wrong. It is wrong because you added the following "as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous." to "instrumental". The entire point of that blog post was to show that fact.
SP Under A-T thought in an "essential" series cause and effect are viewed as instrumental as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous.
This was the quote from Dr Feser I just linked to:
So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first.
"So you can see that your definition is simply wrong. It is wrong because you added the following "as well as concurrent, coincident, or simultaneous." to "instrumental". "
--How stupid.
Feser says in the very words you quoted "their simultaneity". So Feser says an aspect of an "essential" series is simultaneity, therefore an "essential" series is, according to Feser, viewed as having simultaneity, as well as an instrumental character, which is what I said in my definition.
Learn how to read.
@Strawdusty,
--How stupid.
Feser says in the very words you quoted "their simultaneity". So Feser says an aspect of an "essential" series is simultaneity, therefore an "essential" series is, according to Feser, viewed as having simultaneity, as well as an instrumental character, which is what I said in my definition.
Learn how to read.
How funny. He actually said "not their simultaneity". The actual opposite of what you claim.
In fact the very next paragraph he goes on to give an example where simultaneity is not essential (heh) for an essentially ordered series.
But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous.
I know metaphysics is difficult, but come on...reading an article and concluding the point was the opposite of what the author intended? No wonder you're so confused.
bmiller said... August 06, 2017 7:47 AM
" How funny. He actually said "not their simultaneity". The actual opposite of what you claim."
--You are an idiot.
By saying "not their simultaneity" Feser is stating that a characteristic of an "essential" series is simultaneity but in his opinion that characteristic is not the key factor to consider in his analysis.
@Strawdusty,
By saying "not their simultaneity" Feser is stating that a characteristic of an "essential" series is simultaneity but in his opinion that characteristic is not the key factor to consider in his analysis.
No, he is stating that simultaneity is not necessary for an essentially ordered series. It's not that it *"is not the key factor to consider in his analysis."*.
Please read *all* of my reply. Since you apparently did not see it last post, I'll put it in bold this time.
"In fact the very next paragraph he goes on to give an example where simultaneity is not essential (heh) for an essentially ordered series.
But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous."
Post a Comment