tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4930008568391304552..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: How do we define evidence? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger192125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73112215982645121612016-12-26T09:20:24.151-07:002016-12-26T09:20:24.151-07:00Find someone who's willing to teach you, Cal. ...Find someone who's willing to teach you, Cal. It's obvious that you don't understand. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30092195394360603202016-12-26T08:10:40.737-07:002016-12-26T08:10:40.737-07:00Okay, as a recap, here's what so obvious to me...Okay, as a recap, here's what so obvious to me:<br /><br />1. Despite my asking for it who-knows-how-many-times, no one will cite where it is that Aquinas uses the First Way to actually demonstrate that the Christian god exists. <br />2. No one will even try because it doesn't seem to be in Aquinas's Summa Theologica or wherever (despite vague promises that it is), and everyone seems too afraid to even try citing from Aquinas for fear of getting it wrong and having Grod yell at them for not doing it right.<br /><br />What does it say if what Christians consider to be one of "the oldest and most famous arguments for the existence of God" doesn't actually show that any deity, let alone the Christian god, exists, and if no one can cite the relevant parts from the work that supposedly shows this?<br /><br />Is that the kind of thing that we see in rational beliefs? <br /><br />Or is that the kind of thing we see in cultish groups, where hierarchy and belonging are predicated on affirming a set of beliefs that belong to the group, but don't hold up to scrutiny when observed from those who aren't invested in those beliefs? <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70381964033264342632016-12-23T13:31:26.736-07:002016-12-23T13:31:26.736-07:00Merry Christmas Cal.Merry Christmas Cal.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76034081802322438042016-12-23T10:34:49.581-07:002016-12-23T10:34:49.581-07:00Merry Christmas everybody.Merry Christmas everybody.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87977126103134860592016-12-21T21:37:08.138-07:002016-12-21T21:37:08.138-07:00OK.
I can see this is getting unhealthy for Cal. ...OK.<br /><br />I can see this is getting unhealthy for Cal. He needs the last word.<br /><br />Cal, it's all yours.<br /><br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59892899769677783242016-12-21T21:14:14.140-07:002016-12-21T21:14:14.140-07:00At this point I think it should be obvious that Aq...At this point I think it should be obvious that Aquinas's Summa Theologica is supposed to be the work where superstitious belief is intellectually justified EXCEPT that no one wants to actually explore what the Summa Theologica says, or provide citations from it. <br /><br />I think the reason is that the Summa Theologica is kind of embarrassing when you have to defend everything it actually contains.<br /><br />It sounds way better when talked about in the abstract; in the concrete, actual, direct, relevant quoting kind of way -- not so much.<br /><br />Angelology. That's a word that was introduced in the comments here, as I was being lectured on not understanding evidence. <br /><br />Yup.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81988268432545868742016-12-21T17:59:38.423-07:002016-12-21T17:59:38.423-07:00@Cal,
If you think posting random unrelated quote...@Cal,<br /><br />If you think posting random unrelated quotes from the Summa somehow makes you look smart or even rational, you need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking.<br /><br />No one even knows what "objection" you think is unanswered. Are these posts meant to taunt the voices in your head?<br /><br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61346052948082992942016-12-21T15:52:00.844-07:002016-12-21T15:52:00.844-07:00But apparently everyone here is too busy to just c...<i>But apparently everyone here is too busy to just cut and paste that answer.</i> <br /><br />We're actually busy trying to get you to do your homework.<br /><br />A summary of the First Way was cut/pasted for you. A snippet of commentary by Feser was cut/pasted for you. Stop being a victim and keep reading.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52061787785066009622016-12-21T14:30:14.691-07:002016-12-21T14:30:14.691-07:00Grod: "And we are graced with yet another see...Grod: "And we are graced with yet another seemingly random quote from the ST, this time about divine theology and angelology. When a visit to the index would give him all the answers he "seeks" (pause for laughter). But what exactly is Mr. Metzger's point? Who can fathom the dark emptyness of his skull?"<br /><br />"Angelology"?<br /><br />My point is that, despite lots of other chatter, no one seems to be able to cut and paste the adequate response from the ST that answers my objection adequately. Everyone seems to want me to be content with the assurance that it's in there in the ST, somewhere. But apparently everyone here is too busy to just cut and paste that answer. <br /><br />It shouldn't be hard. For instance, if one has this objection, regarding the proportion of angels who sinned: "Further, the angels are distinguished according to persons and orders. Therefore if more angelic persons stood firm, it would appear that those who sinned were not from all the orders."<br /><br />One could just cut and past the response from Saint Thomas that's in the ST (from Article 9): "According to those who hold that the chief devil belonged to the lower order of the angels, who are set over earthly affairs, it is evident that some of every order did not fall, but only those of the lowest order. According to those who maintain that the chief devil was of the highest order, it is probable that some fell of every order; just as men are taken up into every order to supply for the angelic ruin. In this view the liberty of free-will is more established; which in every degree of creature can be turned to evil. In the Sacred Scripture, however, the names of some orders, as of Seraphim and Thrones, are not attributed to demons; since they are derived from the ardor of love and from God's indwelling, which are not consistent with mortal sin. Yet the names of Cherubim, Powers, and Principalities are attributed to them; because these names are derived from knowledge and from power, which can be common to both good and bad."<br /><br />That's how I'd do it, anyway, if I was convinced that St. Thomas hadn't adequately answered the question of what proportion of angels had sinned. <br /><br />I don't know why that would be so difficult for you all to do regarding the criticism I raised. It's almost as if you're not as enthusiastic about the content of the ST as you all seemed to be. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84053779196990170652016-12-21T08:36:21.535-07:002016-12-21T08:36:21.535-07:00Cal reads the ST
Cal ignores the part in the ST t...Cal reads the ST<br /><br />Cal ignores the part in the ST that concludes God, as First Mover, is the ultimate explanation of why things happen in the world. <br /><br />Cal relies on his ignorance to make stupid claims about the First Way<br /><br />Cal continues to look like a fool<br /><br />SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21005452938389511532016-12-21T07:48:43.485-07:002016-12-21T07:48:43.485-07:00And we are graced with yet another seemingly rando...And we are graced with yet another seemingly random quote from the ST, this time about divine theology and angelology. When a visit to the index would give him all the answers he "seeks" (pause for laughter). But what exactly is Mr. Metzger's point? Who can fathom the dark emptyness of his skull?<br /><br />Ladies and gentleman, take a close gander at this "open-minded seeker of truth". He stands as a sober warning to us all lest, out of our numerous imperfections, we fall in the same holes, if we are not already there; that "but for the Grace of God there go I".<br /><br />Mr. Metzger can have the last word; let him believe what he will.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30781466274978679572016-12-21T07:31:30.531-07:002016-12-21T07:31:30.531-07:00Grod [complaining about Cal]: "But it is oh s...Grod [complaining about Cal]: "But it is oh so much better to impugn others with "reason and inquiry are subdued (with varying degrees of vehemence) so as to avoid uncomfortable truths", right? It has all the advantages of theft over honest intellectual toil."<br /><br />Grod: "You lack the most basic evidentiary and logical skills, and it is abundantly clear that you are in this with extreme bad faith and intellectually dishonesty."<br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas (who is apparently the most esteemed by Grod for his use of evidentiary and logical skills), from the Summa Theologica: "In the Sacred Scripture, however, the names of some orders, as of Seraphim and Thrones, are not attributed to demons; since they are derived from the ardor of love and from God's indwelling, which are not consistent with mortal sin. Yet the names of Cherubim, Powers, and Principalities are attributed to them; because these names are derived from knowledge and from power, which can be common to both good and bad.<br /><br />Grod: "But [Cal] is not in the least interested in the truth; he has shoved his head his head so far up his ass by now, that it would take preternatural moral and intellectual courage to back out."<br /><br />Um hmmm.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55138092931996000282016-12-21T03:16:03.091-07:002016-12-21T03:16:03.091-07:00"I keep on looking through the Summa Theologi..."I keep on looking through the Summa Theologica, and quoting from it, and I can't see where he addresses it."<br /><br />Mr. Metzger is not looking anything whatsoever; he is lying -- actually I think Mr. Metzger is not so much a liar but what Harry Frankfurt termed a bullshitter, he simply does not care about the truth, but I leave that analysis for another day. He certainly is a complete moron. He is just quoting random portions of the ST (seemingly, his criterion of choice is to quote the portions that look the more stupid to him) and that are completely irrelevant to the question of God -- which he *full* well knows -- portions having to do with cognition, how cognition works in angels or to use the Scholastic term, separate intellectual substances, and angelology. One look at the index would show him what questions St. Thomas directly addresses in the ST. Other questions are addressed elsewhere (e.g. in the SCG). But he is not in the least interested in the truth; he has shoved his head his head so far up his ass by now, that it would take preternatural moral and intellectual courage to back out.<br /><br />Ladies and gentleman, here is your "open-minded seeker of truth". Pathetic.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89009058005897005312016-12-20T20:03:13.129-07:002016-12-20T20:03:13.129-07:00Grod: "It is your choice what to do with your...Grod: "It is your choice what to do with your intellectual life, but let us not pretend that, as far this particular subject goes, you are anything but a crank and a crackpot. Here is a very simple way to prove me wrong: prove by analysis of the relevant arguments and metaphysical ideas (not the confused mumbo-jumbo that you mistake for Aquinas') that indeed, and contrary to what I said, a causally disconnected "multiverse" say (to pick one of your options) could be the First Mover as Aquinas conceives him."<br /><br />Me, quoting confused mumbo jumbo from Aquinas: " "The execution of the angelic ministrations consists in announcing Divine things. Now in the execution of any action there are beginners and leaders; as in singing, the precentors; and in war, generals and officers; this belongs to the "Principalities." There are others who simply execute what is to be done; and these are the "Angels." Others hold a middle place; and these are the "Archangels," as above explained. This explanation of the orders is quite a reasonable one. For the highest in an inferior order always has affinity to the lowest in the higher order; as the lowest animals are near to the plants. Now the first order is that of the Divine Persons, which terminates in the Holy Ghost, Who is Love proceeding, with Whom the highest order of the first hierarchy has affinity, denominated as it is from the fire of love. The lowest order of the first hierarchy is that of the "Thrones," who in their own order are akin to the "Dominations"; for the "Thrones," according to Gregory (Hom. xxiv in Ev.), are so called "because through them God accomplishes His judgments," since they are enlightened by Him in a manner adapted to the immediate enlightening of the second hierarchy, to which belongs the disposition of the Divine ministrations."<br /><br />bmiller: "At this point I'm guessing you're intoxicated."<br /><br />Mumbo jumbo? Intoxicated? <br /><br />I thought we were talking about St. Aquinas's sophisticated analysis as put forth in the Summa Theologica?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64367982003279632852016-12-20T19:52:31.062-07:002016-12-20T19:52:31.062-07:00@Cal,
Regarding angels again:
At this point I...@Cal,<br /><br />Regarding angels again:<br /><br />At this point I'm guessing you're intoxicated.<br />Good night.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53256972324655278072016-12-20T19:49:15.231-07:002016-12-20T19:49:15.231-07:00"So, you meant it one way, but I (reasonably)..."So, you meant it one way, but I (reasonably) read it another way. That you protest it as meaning something else makes sense to me, so in that instance I withdraw calling you a liar."<br /><br />Apology accepted.<br /><br />Cal:"Still, this makes you a liar:<br /><br />bmiller: "o this day you have observably not even ATTEMPTED to *refute* it..."<br /><br />As I pointed out upthread already, the above is enough to justify the observation that you have lied here."<br /><br />Me: "Criticisms are not refutations."<br /><br />You, yourself, claimed that what you were doing was criticism. I did not dispute. You now understand that criticism is different than refutation.<br /><br />And I am lying by agreeing with you? <br />Please just stop digging deeper.<br /><br />Cal: "Who cares? <br />I guess you and I do or we wouldn't keep this up right?<br />I know why I do. What's your reason?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20549798957108605462016-12-20T19:33:25.736-07:002016-12-20T19:33:25.736-07:00Maybe this is the section from the Summa Theologic...Maybe this is the section from the Summa Theologica from St. Thomas Aquinas that addresses my criticism? <br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas: "The execution of the angelic ministrations consists in announcing Divine things. Now in the execution of any action there are beginners and leaders; as in singing, the precentors; and in war, generals and officers; this belongs to the "Principalities." There are others who simply execute what is to be done; and these are the "Angels." Others hold a middle place; and these are the "Archangels," as above explained. This explanation of the orders is quite a reasonable one. For the highest in an inferior order always has affinity to the lowest in the higher order; as the lowest animals are near to the plants. Now the first order is that of the Divine Persons, which terminates in the Holy Ghost, Who is Love proceeding, with Whom the highest order of the first hierarchy has affinity, denominated as it is from the fire of love. The lowest order of the first hierarchy is that of the "Thrones," who in their own order are akin to the "Dominations"; for the "Thrones," according to Gregory (Hom. xxiv in Ev.), are so called "because through them God accomplishes His judgments," since they are enlightened by Him in a manner adapted to the immediate enlightening of the second hierarchy, to which belongs the disposition of the Divine ministrations."<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38032099585449618502016-12-20T19:02:34.475-07:002016-12-20T19:02:34.475-07:00bmiller: "Regarding angel rants: / Please tak...bmiller: "Regarding angel rants: / Please take your meds if you have a prescription (in the prescribed dose). / Please stop taking meds that are not prescribed."<br /><br />So, nothing from St. Thomas Aquinas that you can direct me to regarding my criticism of the First Way? <br /><br />Do you think that St. Thomas took meds to write what he wrote? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63357883844565297142016-12-20T19:00:55.468-07:002016-12-20T19:00:55.468-07:00@bmiller, here's your problem:
You wrote (bmi...@bmiller, here's your problem:<br /><br />You wrote (bmiller): "First you were challenged to *refute* the First Way not anything that Legion of Logic posted. To this day you have observably not even attempted to *refute* it. It's clear that you still don't understand the term, after the definition was posted and grodrigues explained why what you've attempted does not meet the definition. / Next, your summary of what you take Legion of Logic to mean by his post..."<br /><br />I read your comment as being a progression -- "First... next..."<br /><br />So, I read:<br />bmiller: 1: you were challenged to *refute* the First Way not anything that Legion of Logic posted...<br />Next:. your summary...<br /><br />So, you meant it one way, but I (reasonably) read it another way. That you protest it as meaning something else makes sense to me, so in that instance I withdraw calling you a liar.<br /><br />Still, this makes you a liar:<br /><br />bmiller: "o this day you have observably not even ATTEMPTED to *refute* it..."<br /><br />As I pointed out upthread already, the above is enough to justify the observation that you have lied here. <br /><br />Who cares? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70630056472820036582016-12-20T18:20:27.651-07:002016-12-20T18:20:27.651-07:00@Cal Metzger,
Regarding angel rants:
Please take ...@Cal Metzger,<br /><br />Regarding angel rants:<br />Please take your meds if you have a prescription (in the prescribed dose).<br />Please stop taking meds that are not prescribed.<br /><br />I'll say a prayer for you.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59471309963377957972016-12-20T18:14:01.410-07:002016-12-20T18:14:01.410-07:00@Cal Metzger,
Regarding sentence 1.
bmiller: &quo...@Cal Metzger,<br /><br />Regarding sentence 1.<br />bmiller: "First you were challenged to *refute* the First Way not anything that Legion of Logic posted. <br />Cal"I understand your first sentence to include the assertion that I was not asked to refute anything that Legion of Logic posted. This is observably false. I call that a lie."<br /><br />I've shown you the post where I challenged you. It did not contain "anything that Legion of Logic posted".<br />That you claim you cannot understand the English sentence, even now, after clarification does not make me a liar, but says loads about you.<br /><br />Regarding sentence 2.<br />bmiller:"To this day you have observably not even attempted to *refute* it."<br /><br />Cal:"I also understand your second sentence to be observably false, as my criticisms (which I maintain are entirely valid) are indeed refutations of the First Way's conclusion -- which is where I began my criticism. Even if you were to claim that my criticism are not valid, there's no conceivable way one could claim they are not attempts to show the errors in the argument.<br /><br />Merriam Webster on Refutation: <br />1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous<br />2: to deny the truth or accuracy of "<br /><br />Dec 16: Me"<br />Merriam-Webster definition: *refute*<br />"to prove wrong by argument or evidence" <br /><br />I still haven't seen anything from you that meets the definition."<br /><br />It's clear to English speakers what the operative definition of *refute* is in this discussion. 2 does not apply.<br /><br />Criticisms are not refutations. They do not "prove wrong by argument or evidence". They do not even "show to be false or erroneous". <br /><br />Here is a clue for the clueless.<br />Look up synonyms for *refutation* and *criticism* in Merriam-Webster. An extra hint: click on Thesaurus.<br /><br />Do you still think I owe you an apology?<br /><br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33582233387799907922016-12-20T17:51:11.802-07:002016-12-20T17:51:11.802-07:00Grod: "(5) All (or virtually all) the objecti...Grod: "(5) All (or virtually all) the objections are *explicitly* addressed and answered by St. Thomas."<br /><br />Really? I keep on looking through the Summa Theologica, and quoting from it, and I can't see where he addresses it.<br /><br />Can you please quote the passages you have in mind? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73906496439681450082016-12-20T17:01:11.182-07:002016-12-20T17:01:11.182-07:00Possibly this is the point in the Summa Theologica...Possibly this is the point in the Summa Theological where Saint Thomas Aquinas responds to my criticism? <br /><br />Saint Thomas Aquinas: "So we must consider that in the angelic orders all spiritual perfections are common to all the angels, and that they are all more excellently in the superior than in the inferior angels. Further, as in these perfections there are grades, the superior perfection belongs to the superior order as its property, whereas it belongs to the inferior by participation; and conversely the inferior perfection belongs to the inferior order as its property, and to the superior by way of excess; and thus the superior order is denominated from the superior perfection."<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67226117391507241902016-12-20T16:56:58.671-07:002016-12-20T16:56:58.671-07:00Maybe it's this?
Saint Thomas Aquinas: "...Maybe it's this?<br /><br />Saint Thomas Aquinas: "The inferior angel is superior to the highest man of our hierarchy, according to the words, "He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he"---namely, John the Baptist, than whom "there hath not risen a greater among them that are born of women" (Mt. 11:11). Hence the lesser angel of the heavenly hierarchy can not only cleanse, but also enlighten and perfect, and in a higher way than can the orders of our hierarchy. Thus the heavenly orders are not distinguished by reason of these, but by reason of other different acts."<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57180618062872896912016-12-20T16:55:42.927-07:002016-12-20T16:55:42.927-07:00Is this the section from the Summa Theologica that...Is this the section from the Summa Theologica that you guys think answers my criticism?<br /><br />Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Under this head there are eight points of inquiry:<br />(1) Whether all the angels belong to one hierarchy?<br />(2) Whether in one hierarchy there is only one order?<br />(3) Whether in one order there are many angels?<br />(4) Whether the distinction of hierarchies and orders is natural? <br />(5) Of the names and properties of each order.<br />(6) Of the comparison of the orders to one another.<br />(7) Whether the orders will outlast the Day of Judgment?<br />(8) Whether men are taken up into the angelic orders?"<br /><br />Lmk.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.com