tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5146759188289684594..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: AswedenismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger471125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17027441331479977772020-11-29T17:50:07.464-07:002020-11-29T17:50:07.464-07:00Oh, this is being used as a serious argument? I wa...Oh, this is being used as a serious argument? I was googling aswedinism to use as an example of really silly arguments. Well this is a few years old and so may just be a record of an idea when it was being considered.<br /><br />But since I'm here… So somebody says, "Well I lack a belief in Sweden. You have the burden of proof for Sweden." Well first and foremost I'd respond with, "I simply don't care if you believe in Sweden or not." I'm not a Swedenist. I have no vested interest in Sweden. I'm certainly no expert on Sweden, and I simply don't care. If anything, I'd encourage you in your new-found skepticism. Doubt hats. Distrust widths. Lack faith in spinning wheels. Not to belittle the Swedes, but Sweden is a trivial, contingent truth. Maybe if I were really interested in whatever the term for national borders is, and I didn't think this was mere trollery, I might take an interest. <br /> <br />I’d also make one suggestion for honing this “Aswedenist argument”. Sweden is both vague in this context, and not particularly independent. It’s kind of like lacking belief in page 53 in a book. It be more clear to just lack belief in the book. After all, it's not like I lack belief in Yahweh but other deities get a vague "Eh..." dead jawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10537228519964341813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14972515804028925772017-01-12T08:24:49.660-07:002017-01-12T08:24:49.660-07:00Legion: "...they are not interested in learni...Legion: "...they are not interested in learning the truth. "<br />Stardusty: "By all means, please do point out the specific errors in my posts of January 10, 2017 10:01 PM / January 10, 2017 10:02 PM"<br /><br />Legion: "I already pointed out to Cal that childish taunts - and in this case, baseless accusations - do not work."<br /><br />So, despite requests from Stardusty and me to cite on what you base your accusations (above), you go on to accusing us of (wait for it) making baseless accusations.<br /><br />What's that word again?<br /><br />Oh, that's right.<br /><br />Hypocrisy.<br /><br />It's called hypocrisy.<br /><br />----<br /><br />Do you think that when readers come across the comments here they see how you imagine yourself to be, or do they just see your words? <br /><br />I ask because I think it's the second one, and the best explanation I have for your comments is that you think it's the first. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33918034021883741502017-01-12T07:36:46.314-07:002017-01-12T07:36:46.314-07:00Legion of Logic said...
"Dodge"
&q...Legion of Logic said...<br /><br /> "Dodge"<br /><br />" I already pointed out to Cal that childish taunts - and in this case, baseless accusations - do not work. There is not one reason to suspect that bmiller did anything but get overloaded by the size of those posts." <br />The dodge was one of mischaracterizing the subject and not addressing the actual points made.<br /><br />He created a straw man and then asserted he has no interest in the straw man. That is a dodge.<br /><br />You are the one issuing the ad hominems:<br />"childish"<br />"troll"<br />"arrogant"<br /><br />Yet you are unable to find specific logical or factual errors in my posts, which is typical of a person who only issues ad hominems.<br /><br />But again, by all means, please do point out the specific errors in my posts of<br />January 10, 2017 10:01 PM<br />January 10, 2017 10:02 PM<br /><br /><br /> January 12, 2017 12:53 AM StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20673475773045998312017-01-12T00:53:30.508-07:002017-01-12T00:53:30.508-07:00"Dodge"
I already pointed out to Cal th..."Dodge"<br /><br />I already pointed out to Cal that childish taunts - and in this case, baseless accusations - do not work. There is not one reason to suspect that bmiller did anything but get overloaded by the size of those posts. He likely got tired of having to read and respond to hundreds of words of foolishness and arrogance multiple times a day. <br /><br />Open your mind and use clear thinking, and you might be able to comprehend reality. "Dodge" and "pretend" are delusional fantasies based on groundless arrogance.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81139809991973816412017-01-11T20:50:12.537-07:002017-01-11T20:50:12.537-07:00Blogger bmiller said...
" Finally, Quark...<br />Blogger bmiller said...<br /><br /><br />" Finally, Quarks! Electrons! Neutrinos!"<br />Indeed, these particles, at this time the most fundamental we know of, do not know or care about blood, a hatchet, human life, or our notions of right and wrong. At that level cause and effect are arbitrary.<br /><br />That is the level one must analyze in order to understand the origins of our big bang, and to further consider the origins of existence.<br /><br />I am sorry you have yet to gain the conceptual depth needed to understand this rational analysis.<br /><br /><br />" Therefore it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a heinous crime was committed."<br />A heinous crime is an assignment of evil or wrong on our macro scale of human sensibilities. It tells us nothing about the origins of existence.<br /><br /><br />" This thread has gone on a long time and is rolling off the front page. The topic seems to have shifted to whether science, the system based on assuming cause and effect and that the universe is intelligible, has proven itself incoherent using it’s own system of inquiry. It’s an interesting topic, but let’s take it up next time. OK?"<br />Dodge.<br /><br />When you clear you mind of your muddled concepts that conflate macro approximations with fundamental interactions, and obfuscating terminology, you will have a chance at expanding your mind to begin to think rationally about the origins of existence.<br /><br /><br /> January 11, 2017 1:07 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85328142659310891842017-01-11T20:27:38.690-07:002017-01-11T20:27:38.690-07:00Legion of Logic said...
" they are not intere...<br />Legion of Logic said...<br />" they are not interested in learning the truth. "<br />By all means, please do point out the specific errors in my posts of <br />January 10, 2017 10:01 PM<br />January 10, 2017 10:02 PM<br /><br /><br />"You can tell all they want is to score points, due to the sheer number of insults given, "<br />Insults directed at who exactly?<br /><br />"which again could be either arrogance or trolling."<br />It is called an education. Those of use who have studied at university have certain rational advantages. But, perhaps you are also an educated individual, fine, then I am sure you can point out the specific analytical errors in my posts. <br /><br />Or are you only here to cast ad hominems such as "arrogant" and "troll"?<br /><br /><br /> January 11, 2017 7:39 AM StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55793386451356167972017-01-11T15:45:43.228-07:002017-01-11T15:45:43.228-07:00Legion: "Ridiculous taunts like this only wor...Legion: "Ridiculous taunts like this only work in Back to the Future movies. "Chicken!" There is literally no reason to assume that bmiller was being dishonest, but if he was, it's no doubt fatigue at dealing with bad arguments presented with certainty."<br /><br />bmiller has been pretending that Aquinas's arguments are not only relevant, but persuasive. (They are not.)<br /><br />bmiller has been pretending for some time that he understand basic science and its philosophical underpinnings. (He does not.)<br /><br />bmiller has been pretending for some time that he has something to teach Stardusty. (He does not.)<br /><br />bmiller has been pretending that in his discussion the fuzzy terms, equivocation, and inability to focus on a coherent topic are a result of Stardusty's comments. (They are not.)<br /><br />So, I stand corrected. Four pretends. (At least.)<br /><br />-----<br /><br />Insult away, I really don't care. <br /><br />The facts are the facts, and I have summarized them correctly. If you guys want to lie in the mess you've made in the last 400 some odd comments, well, then, treat yo' selves!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47738962201064479052017-01-11T14:58:49.658-07:002017-01-11T14:58:49.658-07:00"Pretend pretend pretend."
Ridiculous t...<br />"Pretend pretend pretend."<br /><br />Ridiculous taunts like this only work in Back to the Future movies. "Chicken!" There is literally no reason to assume that bmiller was being dishonest, but if he was, it's no doubt fatigue at dealing with bad arguments presented with certainty.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67393580681751392552017-01-11T14:06:06.456-07:002017-01-11T14:06:06.456-07:00bmiller: "Man you must be retired....but let’...bmiller: "Man you must be retired....but let’s take it up next time. OK?"<br /><br />Pretend pretend pretend.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14492219272498620812017-01-11T13:07:20.538-07:002017-01-11T13:07:20.538-07:00@Stardusty Psyche,
Man you must be retired to hav...@Stardusty Psyche,<br /><br />Man you must be retired to have so much time for this! I’m not so I can’t keep this up.<br />It seems that we’ve reached a point where there is a transition of topics, so it’s a pretty good place to stop. I’ll make this final post and you can have the last word.<br /><br />Regarding post of January 10, 2017 9:59 PM.<br /><br />SP:"So, the assertion of an unchanged changer is either irrational or unnecessary, thus the argument is unsound."<br />The argument is sound and valid. <br />Your response makes sense only if one assumes that all that exists is extended in space, which of course is a materialist position and so begs the question against one holding hylomorphism. It is an entirely different discussion. The topic of the infinity of God is discussed ST Part 1, Question 7 FYI.<br /><br />SP:"I am not surprised you do not know what I am talking about. I suggest you free your mind from all ancient concepts of causality, start from a blank slate, review modern physics, and then you will know what I am talking about."<br />Still nothing specific. Just not feeling the "Woo".<br /><br />I got it that you don't like these 2 types of series. Something about “fallacious terminology”. Opinion noted.<br /><br />SP:"Ancient ideas are not wrong because they are ancient. But most ancient ideas relating to physics, causality, and the nature of reality have no validity, so in practice, ancient ideas on these subjects turn out to be wrong in nearly every respect."<br />The only specific example we examined proved the exactly the opposite.<br /><br /><br />Regarding posts of January 10, 2017 10:01 PM and January 10, 2017 10:02 PM<br /><br /><br />Let me start with a fictitious story”(The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious..etc)<br /><br />>>>Start of story<<<<<br /><br />My cousin Vinny:<br />Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.<br />"Although I, do not dispute the facts of the case that I was indeed caught with a hatchet in my hand buried deep in the dead skull of Billy Millis I will dispute that a heinous crime was committed."<br /><br />First, Newtonian physics is unclear on the matter. Was hand-hatchet-skull the cause or was skull-hatchet-hand the cause? The choice is arbitrary. The assignment of cause and effect is arbitrary. Perhaps I should sue Billy Millis for injury to my hand!<br /><br />But second, let’s look at this at a deeper level: Quantum Physics.<br />It is well known that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can never measure all aspects of an interaction with precision. This means cause and effect are arbitrary (somehow) at a really, really small scale also. <br />Also, because reality is only these very smallest of things we at a macro level do not actually experience reality. Therefore, was Billy Millis actually real? Who’s to say?<br /><br />Finally, Quarks! Electrons! Neutrinos!<br /><br />Therefore it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a heinous crime was committed. <br />I rest my case.<br />>>>End of story<<<<<br /><br />This thread has gone on a long time and is rolling off the front page. The topic seems to have shifted to whether science, the system based on assuming cause and effect and that the universe is intelligible, has proven itself incoherent using it’s own system of inquiry. It’s an interesting topic, but let’s take it up next time. OK?<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80636347957527082352017-01-11T12:26:23.199-07:002017-01-11T12:26:23.199-07:00Legion: "The very first sentence you posted i...Legion: "The very first sentence you posted in this thread was an insult..."<br /><br />In a discussion where people disagree, it's customary to start out by indicating with what you disagree. If you can't handle blunt speak in a discussion, then I don't suppose you and your cherished beliefs are ready for adult discussion. <br /><br />Was that insulting? I wouldn't find the sentiment above insulting -- I would agree with it. <br /><br />Legion: "... - and yes, telling someone they don't understand how rational beliefs are formed is in fact an insult, unless you could explain how it was in any way helpful to discussion - even if it was true?"<br /><br />I explained how it was true in the rest of my first comment. Why would you ignore that fact? <br /><br />Legion: "Indeed, insults have flown both ways..."<br /><br />You take offense at the insults of those with whom you disagree, and pardon the preponderance of insults on the side with whom you disagree. This would only be inconsistent of you, but seeing as how the petty behavior almost always starts with apologists here (grod, bmiller, JoF , yourself, etc.) I think your position goes all the way to hypocrisy.<br /><br />Legion: "...but I wonder how the thread would go if a couple certain nonbelievers didn't pretend to know what they didn't know and act so consistently condescending? We will likely never know."<br /><br />Without misrepresenting, name cite where Stardusty and I have pretended to know what we don't know. <br /><br />Then ask which side is pretending about knowing the answer to enduring riddles, the kind of evidence they really have, and the practical value of things like "angelology."<br /><br />Opposite world much? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51465230875786413222017-01-11T11:13:52.476-07:002017-01-11T11:13:52.476-07:00"You are truly blinded."
The very first..."You are truly blinded."<br /><br />The very first sentence you posted in this thread was an insult - and yes, telling someone they don't understand how rational beliefs are formed is in fact an insult, unless you could explain how it was in any way helpful to discussion - even if it was true?<br /><br />Indeed, insults have flown both ways, but I wonder how the thread would go if a couple certain nonbelievers didn't pretend to know what they didn't know and act so consistently condescending? We will likely never know. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59763672268522031612017-01-11T09:17:49.898-07:002017-01-11T09:17:49.898-07:00@Legion of Logic,
LOL:"but I have to questio...@Legion of Logic,<br /><br />LOL:"but I have to question if you believe you will actually achieve anything. They are either blinded by their own arrogance or they are trolling at this point, but either way they are not interested in learning the truth. You can tell all they want is to score points, due to the sheer number of insults given, which again could be either arrogance or trolling."<br /><br />I think maybe I have achieved my goal with SP at least. My goal was for him to just understand the argument rather than a straw man. It would have been less time consuming and less painful if he had just read the link JoF had suggested last year, but I did have some time on my hands. Not so much anymore.<br /><br />Maybe one more response to conclude.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24482360401243714572017-01-11T08:32:21.996-07:002017-01-11T08:32:21.996-07:00Legion: "You can tell all they want is to sco...Legion: "You can tell all they want is to score points, due to the sheer number of insults given, which again could be either arrogance or trolling."<br /><br />Hysterical. <br /><br />Would love to add up the number of insults offered by apologists comments here, compared to those offered by skeptics. <br /><br />You are truly blinded.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47167633996904875292017-01-11T07:39:55.316-07:002017-01-11T07:39:55.316-07:00bmiller: "In the series ordered sequentially...bmiller: "In the series ordered sequentially in time it is possible that one of the instrumental causes ceased to exist, yet the series can still be considered a casual series. Let me know if you do not see the distinction now."<br /><br />SD: "I see so much more than you it is in part humorous and in part sad that you think you are presenting and educating argument to me of any sort."<br /><br />Cal: "It's funny because it's true."<br /><br />Bmiller, in a way I admire your ability to confront this asinine behavior without losing your temper, but I have to question if you believe you will actually achieve anything. They are either blinded by their own arrogance or they are trolling at this point, but either way they are not interested in learning the truth. You can tell all they want is to score points, due to the sheer number of insults given, which again could be either arrogance or trolling.<br /><br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82638099680284456082017-01-11T06:24:22.056-07:002017-01-11T06:24:22.056-07:00SP (to bmiller) "I see so much more than you ...SP (to bmiller) "I see so much more than you it is in part humorous and in part sad that you think you are presenting and educating argument to me of any sort."<br /><br />It's funny because it's true.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33202710021146331172017-01-11T06:10:06.962-07:002017-01-11T06:10:06.962-07:00As I've always said, fundies are all cut from...As I've always said, fundies are all cut from the same cloth. Fascinating. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83850436429257665572017-01-10T22:02:10.665-07:002017-01-10T22:02:10.665-07:00But I will help you with a more classical example,...But I will help you with a more classical example, say the cause and effect of 2 balls. Suppose ball A at some velocity smacks into ball B which is stationary which causes ball B to move in some direction at some velocity. So, the classicist might say, ball A is the cause of the motion of ball B.<br /><br />Further, the classicist can apply the language of per se and per accidens to this situation in an attempt to analyze and make sense of it. To no actual benefit.<br /><br />In Newtonian mechanics we could study the collision. As A contacts B a force is applied to B by A. Both balls compress so this collision continues as a temporal process. The greater the compression the more the force. Force applied to mass yields acceleration. Force applied over distance equates to energy. Thus, by integrating over time we can model the temporal transfer of kinetic energy from A to B and calculate the change in velocity of each.<br /><br />Was A the cause or was B the cause? The choice is arbitrary. In truth the terms cause and effect as applied to these objects is a personification of them, an anthropormorphization of them, in the sense that each of us feels we cause things to happen are we as being are "a cause" in some sense. An object is issued the title of "a cause".<br /><br />In truth, at the macro approximation scale of Newtonian mechanics, a temporal energy transfer occurred. B caused the kinetic energy and velocity of A to change just as surely as A caused B to change. The assignment of cause and effect is arbitrary.<br /><br />But that, of course, is not the true description of the even either. We can consider all the molecules in each ball and all their changes in this interaction, but still not have it right. To get to the truth of the matter we would have to know all the details of all the most fundamental particles and fields in the whole system, which of course we cannot know.<br /><br />So, when I heard a lecture by WL Craig about a ball on a pillow, and in his view the ball is the cause of the depression in the pillow, and therefore cause and effect can exist simultaneously, and therefore cause and effect can be timeless, and therefore there can be a timeless cause or our timeline of causes...<br /><br />What a profoundly ignorant man WL Craig is. How preposterous these theistic muddled concepts are.<br /><br />So, again, I warmly invite you to wipe the slate clean, clear your mind of these notions from a past of ignorance. Expand your mind to conceive of reality as you perhaps did not even consider in your lifetime.<br /><br /><br /> January 10, 2017 9:26 AM<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57553729469430909992017-01-10T22:01:21.724-07:002017-01-10T22:01:21.724-07:00I will help you out now.
Consider the standard mo...I will help you out now.<br /><br />Consider the standard model. I will simplify it by only considiering the up quark, down quark, electron, and nutrino as particles. Further I will for this time limit myself to the electromagnetic force, gravity, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force as fields.<br /><br />These notions of particles and fields are not all that are now known, and there is a great deal of reason to think they are not even fundamental, but in terms of causality such things change the notions of causality only by degrees of complexity, not qualitatively.<br /><br />I urge you to consider the view of John Bell, who had a disdain for the word "measurement". There is no such thing as measurement on the fundamental scale. There are only interacting systems. To "measure" a thing we must bounce something off of it or pass something through it and try to somehow detect certain changes. Yet this act of colliding one thing with another changes both things therefore making the distinction between cause and effect arbitrary, and the "measurement" is uncertain owing to the wavelength of the things we are colliding.<br /><br />Everything is continually or continuously interacting with other things. Existence progresses temporally as a vastly complex seething stew of interactions in which cause and effect are arbitrary.<br /><br />To understand the very largest thing we know of scientifically, the observable universe, our big bang, we must immediately study the very smallest things we know of, I as I have mentioned a subset of above. That is because reality is only these very smallest of things, all else being the aggregate structure of these smallest things and wholly dependent upon them and therefore fully defined by them.<br /><br />Unfortunately, these small entities are so vast in number, so hard to detect and quantify, and even in principle impossible to quantify precisely in whole, that we are forced into a large number of macro approximations.<br /><br />Critically, to begin to understand reality, we must bear in mind at all times that all our macro approximations are just that, not accurate descriptions of the true process of the interacting systems we wish to analyze.<br /><br /><br /> January 10, 2017 9:26 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58930843945763427712017-01-10T21:59:35.925-07:002017-01-10T21:59:35.925-07:00bmiller said...
" Hence the Unchanged Changer...bmiller said...<br />" Hence the Unchanged Changer. The argument is sound and valid."<br />Nope, because this assertion is just as irrational and therefore unsound. This argument is simply special pleading that a thing can magically be irrational.<br /><br />This asserted magical thing is just that, a thing. If it is irrational for a thing to be actually infinite than this thing is irrational. If a thing can be actually infinite then there is no necessity for the thing you speculate and the fault is in our inadequate conceptual capabilities.<br /><br />So, the assertion of an unchanged changer is either irrational or unnecessary, thus the argument is unsound.<br /><br /><br /> Me:"The universe itself is changing so it cannot be that unchanged changer. "<br /> SP:"You would first of all have to define "universe". If by "universe" you mean "our big bang" then you have a very limited concept of the word "universe"."<br />" You are not being specific so I can't respond. "<br />I am not surprised you do not know what I am talking about. I suggest you free your mind from all ancient concepts of causality, start from a blank slate, review modern physics, and then you will know what I am talking about.<br /><br /><br /> SP:"You are greatly simplifying the notion of cause and effect by generalizing it to a macro level and conceiving of it in a freeze frame sense and assigning a general causality to whole collections of myriad constituents, such as my past relatives."<br />" I can see that the distinction I was trying to communicate was not clear enough. Let me try it this way:<br /> For purposes of this discussion I am referring to 2 different types of casual series. "<br />Right, I know that. That is your problem. Free your mind of these ancient and false simplifications and you can begin to expand your mind.<br /><br />"One type of casual series is simultaneous (per the First Way argument) while the other is a casual series ordered sequentially in time (grandparents to you). "<br />Considering a grandparent to be a cause is a vastly oversimplified notion of causality that you will free yourself from when you abandon your fallacious terminology.<br /><br />"In the series ordered sequentially in time it is possible that one of the instrumental causes ceased to exist, yet the series can still be considered a casual series. Let me know if you do not see the distinction now."<br />I see so much more than you it is in part humorous and in part sad that you think you are presenting and educating argument to me of any sort.<br /><br /><br /> Me:"" The age of the argument is irrelevant to the argument and I'm sure you agree, right? "<br /> SP:"As a matter of principle, yes, but in practice, no."<br /> I think you mean that although you realize holding this is a fallacy, nevertheless you choose to hold it. "<br />Again, I am so far beyond you that you don't even know what you do not know.<br /><br />Ancient ideas are not wrong because they are ancient. But most ancient ideas relating to physics, causality, and the nature of reality have no validity, so in practice, ancient ideas on these subjects turn out to be wrong in nearly every respect.<br /><br /><br /> January 10, 2017 9:26 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65638549764867222632017-01-10T09:26:37.308-07:002017-01-10T09:26:37.308-07:00@Stardusty Psyche,
SP:"It is illogical but t...@Stardusty Psyche,<br /><br />SP:"It is illogical but that is the core of the great existential riddle that god does nothing to solve.<br /><br />Irrespective of the formulation the fundamental problem is the irrationality of an actual infinity. The speculation of god is just as irrational and therefor has no explanatory power.<br /><br /><br />"This requires something unchanged yet causing the instrumental causes in the series to change. "<br />Which is also irrational."<br />It seems to me that you have almost grasped the argument but not quite. I think that you now understand what is being referred to is a series of things changing and being changed, but you miss that you actually agree with Aquinas that the series cannot be an "actual infinity". Since it cannot be an "actual infinity" it must terminate. The only option to terminate the series is by something causing the change, but not changing itself (otherwise it would just be part of the changing series itself). Hence the Unchanged Changer. The argument is sound and valid.<br /><br /><br />Me:"The universe itself is changing so it cannot be that unchanged changer. "<br />SP:"You would first of all have to define "universe". If by "universe" you mean "our big bang" then you have a very limited concept of the word "universe"."<br />You are not being specific so I can't respond. Way back yonder I asked you what you meant but we got sidetracked. Can you explain how any definition of "universe" you choose causes problems for the argument?<br /><br />SP:"You are greatly simplifying the notion of cause and effect by generalizing it to a macro level and conceiving of it in a freeze frame sense and assigning a general causality to whole collections of myriad constituents, such as my past relatives."<br />I can see that the distinction I was trying to communicate was not clear enough. Let me try it this way:<br />For purposes of this discussion I am referring to 2 different types of casual series. One type of casual series is simultaneous (per the First Way argument) while the other is a casual series ordered sequentially in time (grandparents to you). In the series ordered sequentially in time it is possible that one of the instrumental causes ceased to exist, yet the series can still be considered a casual series. Let me know if you do not see the distinction now.<br /><br />SP:"In discussing the origins of the very large one immediately must turn to the nature of the underlying reality at the very smallest scale, whatever that is."<br />The argument does start with observations at the small scale.<br /><br />Me:" Which definitions are in error and how?"<br />SP:"To borrow from your above statement there is much to discuss in that, but for example the notion that a macro object is itself a cause is vastly oversimplified."<br />I was wondering how you considered a definition in error. What you are referring to is not a definition but even at that it's not clear to me what the actual objection is.<br /><br />Me:"" The age of the argument is irrelevant to the argument and I'm sure you agree, right? "<br />SP:"As a matter of principle, yes, but in practice, no."<br />I think you mean that although you realize holding this is a fallacy, nevertheless you choose to hold it. Thanks for being honest.<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73209201222516862732017-01-10T04:58:57.691-07:002017-01-10T04:58:57.691-07:00SP: "Sorry, but your language and your concep...SP: "Sorry, but your language and your concepts are vastly over simplified and so much so that they lose their analytical utility."<br /><br />I feel like this can't be said enough in these kinds of discussions. It should be deliverable as a hotkey or something. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44567307964038199782017-01-09T22:42:33.031-07:002017-01-09T22:42:33.031-07:00bmiller said...
" SP:"Then the whole ...bmiller said...<br />" SP:"Then the whole universe is a casual series ordered per se, since everything is in motion and continually colliding with adjacent things and continuously under the mutual force influence of various fields."<br /> That's the gist of it. At any particular moment, (picture the example where we freeze time) there is a series of changers being changed by other changers. This series of things changing or being changed cannot go on to infinity. "<br />It is illogical but that is the core of the great existential riddle that god does nothing to solve.<br /><br />Irrespective of the formulation the fundamental problem is the irrationality of an actual infinity. The speculation of god is just as irrational and therefor has no explanatory power.<br /><br /><br />"This requires something unchanged yet causing the instrumental causes in the series to change. "<br />Which is also irrational.<br /><br /><br />"The universe itself is changing so it cannot be that unchanged changer. "<br />You would first of all have to define "universe". If by "universe" you mean "our big bang" then you have a very limited concept of the word "universe".<br /><br />"Whatever else may be said of God, he is considered the primary and ultimate cause of all change in the universe. The Unchanged Changer."<br />I can consider superstuff to be the unchanged changer, so what?<br /><br /><br /> SP:"Distinction without a difference. My parents were composed of particles that were and are part of an unbroken chain of causes and events."<br />" There is much to discuss here, but for now, I'm sure would agree that your great-great-great grandfather was a cause of you coming to be, however, not in the sense of right at this very moment like above. That is the distinction between the 2 types of series."<br />You are greatly simplifying the notion of cause and effect by generalizing it to a macro level and conceiving of it in a freeze frame sense and assigning a general causality to whole collections of myriad constituents, such as my past relatives.<br /><br />In discussing the origins of the very large one immediately must turn to the nature of the underlying reality at the very smallest scale, whatever that is.<br /><br />Sorry, but your language and your concepts are vastly over simplified and so much so that they lose their analytical utility.<br /><br /><br /><br /> SP:"Ok, your definitions of the terms are inherently defective. It is not that I want to redefine the words, it is that your definitions contain errors."<br />" Which definitions are in error and how?"<br />To borrow from your above statement there is much to discuss in that, but for example the notion that a macro object is itself a cause is vastly oversimplified.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Me:"Geometry is attributed to Euclid who was not medieval."<br /> SP:"That was in reference to Aquinas, not geometry."<br />" Yes, but if the only reason medieval arguments are bad is because they are old, then Euclid's must be bad too."<br />The reasons medieval theological arguments are so bad are many, but they especially suffer from an acute lack of scientific grounding. That is not an insult to the intelligence of the medieval thinker as we all stand upon the shoulders of those who have come before us and medieval thinkers simply did not have the benefit of science as we know it.<br /><br /><br />" The age of the argument is irrelevant to the argument and I'm sure you agree, right? "<br />As a matter of principle, yes, but in practice, no.<br /><br /><br /> January 09, 2017 1:38 PM StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7091370961703111112017-01-09T13:38:23.415-07:002017-01-09T13:38:23.415-07:00@Stardusty Psyche,
SP:"Then the whole univer...@Stardusty Psyche,<br /><br />SP:"Then the whole universe is a casual series ordered per se, since everything is in motion and continually colliding with adjacent things and continuously under the mutual force influence of various fields."<br />That's the gist of it. At any particular moment, (picture the example where we freeze time) there is a series of changers being changed by other changers. This series of things changing or being changed cannot go on to infinity. This requires something unchanged yet causing the instrumental causes in the series to change. The universe itself is changing so it cannot be that unchanged changer. Whatever else may be said of God, he is considered the primary and ultimate cause of all change in the universe. The Unchanged Changer.<br /><br />SP:"Distinction without a difference. My parents were composed of particles that were and are part of an unbroken chain of causes and events."<br />There is much to discuss here, but for now, I'm sure would agree that your great-great-great grandfather was a cause of you coming to be, however, not in the sense of right at this very moment like above. That is the distinction between the 2 types of series.<br /><br />SP:"Ok, your definitions of the terms are inherently defective. It is not that I want to redefine the words, it is that your definitions contain errors."<br />Which definitions are in error and how? <br /><br />Me:"Geometry is attributed to Euclid who was not medieval."<br />SP:"That was in reference to Aquinas, not geometry."<br />Yes, but if the only reason medieval arguments are bad is because they are old, then Euclid's must be bad too.<br />The age of the argument is irrelevant to the argument and I'm sure you agree, right? Your logic book should list this type of fallacy as the genetic fallacy. I wish our discussion to remain relevant to the topic don't you?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53061864774242347152017-01-09T08:59:44.908-07:002017-01-09T08:59:44.908-07:00Blogger bmiller said...
" Me:" A &qu...<br />Blogger bmiller said...<br /><br />" Me:" A "casual series order per se" is different from a "casual series ordered per accident".<br /> SP:"Right, per se is in or of itself. The notion that something just has an intrinsic property. Hence, it is because I said so. It is because I define it to be so."<br /> OK, that gets the notion entirely gets it wrong.<br /> Let's take your example of you with the pool stick striking the cue ball.<br /> Let's freeze time at that very moment. All other balls on the table are not moving. At that moment, the cue ball is in motion due to the stick which is in motion which is due to your arm which is in motion. All 3 are simultaneously in motion as part of the same act. This is considered a "casual series ordered per se"."<br />Then the whole universe is a casual series ordered per se, since everything is in motion and continually colliding with adjacent things and continuously under the mutual force influence of various fields.<br /><br /><br />" The fact that you were caused by your parents who (theoretically) no longer exist who were caused by their parents who (theoretically) no longer exist etc. is considered a "casual series ordered per accident"."<br />Distinction without a difference. My parents were composed of particles that were and are part of an unbroken chain of causes and events.<br /><br />This view is hopelessly simplistic, which is to be expected of a medieval writer.<br /><br /><br /><br />" The First Cause argument considers only what is happening "at this very moment" as I've maintained throughout. The series in question is a "casual series per se" as explained above. In this case, first is not used in a temporal sense as you maintain, but a in an atemporal hierarchical causal sense."<br />There is no such thing as atemporal causality except as a fuzzy notion in the mind of a theist or the speculations of a few physicists who have drunk a bit too much kool-aid.<br /><br /><br /> SP:"That would require the mutual acceptance between us of a number of postulates. In the field of geometry I suspect we are both prepared to provisionally accept the same set of postulates."<br />" My point, of course, was that one would have to understand the terms and structure of argument used in the proof. Someone who had not taken geometry may consider the term "bisect" spooky, convoluted maybe even medieval which is especially scary. So criticizing an argument because one doesn't understand the terms is fallacious."<br />Ok, your definitions of the terms are inherently defective. It is not that I want to redefine the words, it is that your definitions contain errors.<br /><br /><br />" SP:"Why do you cling to this medieval nonsense?"<br /> Geometry is attributed to Euclid who was not medieval."<br />That was in reference to Aquinas, not geometry.<br /><br /><br /> January 09, 2017 8:31 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com