Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



12/11/2017 12:33 pm  #211


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

SP, It would be much better if you start offering any substantive material , rather than simply repeating the claims which are already refuted, its getting more and more obvious you just want to waste time. 

 

12/11/2017 11:06 pm  #212


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

@Calhoun #211

SP, It would be much better if you start offering any substantive material , rather than simply repeating the claims which are already refuted, its getting more and more obvious you just want to waste time.

--I began in #7 and #8 decisively disproving the First and Second ways as sound arguments for the *necessity* of a first mover to account for motion and existential inertia respectively.

Nobody here seems to even grasp these simple disproofs, much less offer any sound, on topic counter arguments to my decisive disproofs.

The repetition on my part is repeatedly referring to arguments you and others here clearly do not grasp.

But, hope springs eternal. 
Perhaps you will be able to realize that uniform linear motion is not a change in kinetic energy, and thus no changer at all is *necessary* to account for uniform linear motion.
Do you realize that acceleration is a change that does indeed necessitate a changer, which is accounted for by temporal mutually causal interactions in a temporal regress extending back a least as far as the big bang, not a hierarchical regress in the present moment?
Can you grasp that the persistence of material in observed existential inertia is no change in the existential respect of material, and therefore no changer is *necessary* to account for this unchanging respect of material?

You are intelligent enough to turn on your computer and type words on a blog.  I am confident you have the capacity to grasp these things I tell you if you focus carefully on them.



 

 

12/12/2017 12:41 am  #213


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

"Nobody here seems to even grasp these simple disproofs...."

The fundamental arrogance and conceit, even delusion, of SP seems encapsulated in this clause. Have you ever consider that it just might be you who is wrong and not the dozens of those here or at Feser's who have tried to point out your mistakes?

     Thread Starter
 

12/12/2017 1:52 am  #214


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

StardustyPsyche wrote:

@Calhoun #211

SP, It would be much better if you start offering any substantive material , rather than simply repeating the claims which are already refuted, its getting more and more obvious you just want to waste time.

--I began in #7 and #8 decisively disproving the First and Second ways as sound arguments for the *necessity* of a first mover to account for motion and existential inertia respectively.

Nobody here seems to even grasp these simple disproofs, much less offer any sound, on topic counter arguments to my decisive disproofs.

The repetition on my part is repeatedly referring to arguments you and others here clearly do not grasp.

But, hope springs eternal. 
Perhaps you will be able to realize that uniform linear motion is not a change in kinetic energy, and thus no changer at all is *necessary* to account for uniform linear motion.
Do you realize that acceleration is a change that does indeed necessitate a changer, which is accounted for by temporal mutually causal interactions in a temporal regress extending back a least as far as the big bang, not a hierarchical regress in the present moment?
Can you grasp that the persistence of material in observed existential inertia is no change in the existential respect of material, and therefore no changer is *necessary* to account for this unchanging respect of material?

You are intelligent enough to turn on your computer and type words on a blog.  I am confident you have the capacity to grasp these things I tell you if you focus carefully on them.
 

I honestly wonder sometimes if you are here to play the spoil and only confirm people in a basically A-T view. But then I wonder who in the A-T community could afford to have such a person playing that part.


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

12/12/2017 1:55 am  #215


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

--I began in #7 and #8 decisively disproving the First and Second ways as sound arguments for the *necessity* of a first mover to account for motion and existential inertia respectively.

Nobody here seems to even grasp these simple disproofs, much less offer any sound, on topic counter arguments to my decisive disproofs.

The repetition on my part is repeatedly referring to arguments you and others here clearly do not grasp.

Again, its pretty obvious you've got nothing left , all these points you've mentioned have been dealt with at length over the course of this thread, and with different formulations you've given them. So it appears it high time you start realizing that your claims are no good, maybe you're the one who is unable to grasp things here. 

Perhaps you will be able to realize that uniform linear motion is not a change in kinetic energy, and thus no changer at all is *necessary* to account for uniform linear motion.
Do you realize that acceleration is a change that does indeed necessitate a changer, which is accounted for by temporal mutually causal interactions in a temporal regress extending back a least as far as the big bang, not a hierarchical regress in the present moment?
Can you grasp that the persistence of material in observed existential inertia is no change in the existential respect of material, and therefore no changer is *necessary* to account for this unchanging respect of material?

Perhaps You'll be able to realize that those are all dealt with at least five times on this thread, Perhaps You'll be able to realize the irrelevance of uniform linear motion and its kinetic energy to the argument, that kinetic energy supervenes on change, and thus Your claim *fails* to undermine the argument. 
Do you realize that its incoherent that *all* causal series are accidental? Do you realize that if that were the case then nothing could ever really "cause" anything. Things would simply disappear before they can even act or be acted upon, there would be "no" necessary connection between "any" cause and effect? So that is why your asserted temporal-accidental series are impossible, without being undergirded by an essential one.
 Therefor, we totally do require a hierarchical regress, and You haven't shown otherwise. And do you also realize that I've explained how an argument for unmoved mover could be run even without going into these essential/accidental series stuff? How it could be combined with or it could support some other arguments? 

Can you grasp that the word *persistence* implies change? That it makes no sense to say that "X" persists but doesn't change? Can You grasp that there is no such thing as  "existential" inertia?
That you haven't even clearly explained what you mean by "material" or what on Earth "existential respect of material" is supposed to be. and do you grasp that the argument runs with assumption of eternal cosmos? 

You are intelligent enough to turn on your computer and type words on a blog.  I am confident you have the capacity to grasp these things I tell you if you focus carefully on them.

Ditto, for you.
 

 

12/12/2017 3:17 am  #216


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

The more I read SP, the more I remember of this.

 

12/12/2017 7:21 am  #217


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

@FrenchySkepticalCatholic:

And I am reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

 

12/12/2017 8:40 am  #218


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

@FSC #210

It is widely thought that the principle of motion is in conflict with the
principle of inertia and that modern physics has therefore put paid to
Aristotelian natural theology. The assumption is that Aristotle, followed
by Aquinas and other Scholastics, held that an object cannot keep
moving unless something is continuously moving it, but that Newton
showed that it is simply a law of physics that, once set in motion, an
object will remain in motion without any such mover.5 Hence, Anthony
Kenny judges that “it seems that Newton’s law wrecks the argument of
the First Way” (1969, p. 28). 

--Inertia, the conservation of kinetic energy for an object in uniform linear motion, does in fact wreck the First Way because Aquinas claims
"Therefore it is *necessary* to arrive at a first mover,"

The conservation of kinetic energy shows there is no such necessity.  Feser is setting up a strawman to knock down because he is incapable of defending his view on the merits.

1. No formal contradiction 

--This is a strawman.  There can be no formal contradiction between a non-falsifiable speculation and reality that is evident to our senses.  Conservation of mass/energy is evident to our senses.  One can invent speculations of a single god, multiple gods, supercalifragalisticum, invisible magic unicorns, or whatever one wishes and avoid a formal contradiction with all equally.

But no such speculation is *necessary*.  Aquinas claimed *necessary*.  Thus Aquinas failed, as does Feser, and you.

F = const.W.v                            (1)
Force is proportional to velocity which is also true in modern physics when we
include friction and neglect acceleration 

--ROTFLMAO

Sure, if we forget what has been learned we can return to Aristotle.  How asinine.

Pure nonsense. "Actualized in its motion" means "actualized in its non actualization". 

--On the pre-scientific worldview of sublunary motion, you would have a point.  In the modern world, you do not have a point.

Actualized in motion means actualized in a particular kinetic energy.  Because mass/energy is conserved motion is conserved for an object in uniform linear motion.  Feser does not have a clue and argues against the strawman of Newtonian ideas prior to modern science today.

StardustyPsyche wrote:Right, real material motion is a superposition of uniform linear motion and acceleration.
Wrong again. Prove it, and define what you mean by "real" and "material".

 

--Just stating "wrong" is meaningless.  What specifically is wrong?  How is it wrong?  What is the correct alternative?

Show me how you can get a temporal causation without a hierarchical causation. Give me an example

--We see the 4 ball fall in the pocket.  What caused that?
In the past, the 3 ball hit the 4 ball.
Prior to that the 2 ball hit the 3 ball.

And back and back and back in time and space as we regress at least as far back as the big bang.  Every real (not imaginary) material (made of something) causal series is a temporal causal series.


I have read that half baked nonsense by Feser already.  Inertia destroys the First Way because inertia is just a way of expressing the conservation of mass/energy for an object in uniform linear motion.  Inertia is just a shorthand word to express that there is no change in the kinetic energy of an object in uniform linear motion and therefore it is not *necessary* for any other changer, much less a  hierarchical first mover, to exist.



Aquinas claimed "necessary*. 
Modern science proves *not necessary*.
Modern science proves Aquinas failed.


 

 

12/12/2017 10:04 am  #219


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

@Calhoun #215

all these points you've mentioned have been dealt with at length over the course of this thread

--In your imagination.

"dealt with" to a Feserite means some folks threw out a few off point quips, mixed in some name calling, and walked away.  He attracts that sort of person to his blog and to his fanbase because his writing illustrates that's the kind of person he is.

So it appears it high time you start realizing that your claims are no good,

--You certainly have done nothing to argue soundly against my simple refutations.

Mass/energy are conserved meaning there is no change in mass/energy in existence.  If there is no change then it is not *necessary* for there to be any changer at all, much less a hierarchical first changer.

Nobody, not Feser, not you, and not anybody on this thread has done anything to demonstrate an error in that simple refutation of A-T.

kinetic energy supervenes on change

--Please cite a physics experiment, equation, or science link that demonstrates this pointless attempt at A-T jargon.


Do you realize that its incoherent that *all* causal series are accidental? Do you realize that if that were the case then nothing could ever really "cause" anything. Things would simply disappear before they can even act or be acted upon, there would be "no" necessary connection between "any" cause and effect?

--That is a common misconception, that there must be an "essential" series or somehow cause and effect would be disconnected.

Every real material causal *series* is accidental.  Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to 0, inside which no *series* of events can occur, because a *series* of events requires at least 2 time separated events and such time separation cannot be the case within the limit as t goes to 0.

In other words, it is the present moment that connects cause and effect.  The present moment is the moment of simultaneity, and is not a causal *series*.

And do you also realize that I've explained how an argument for unmoved mover could be run even without going into these essential/accidental series stuff? How it could be combined with or it could support some other arguments?

--No.  The unmoved mover in the present moment argument requires an "essential" hierarchical series, which is of course a false notion.

Can you grasp that the word *persistence* implies change?

--No, time passes, or progresses.  Persistence of mass/energy is not a change in the respect of mass/energy and therefore no first changer is required to account for motion or existential inertia.

That it makes no sense to say that "X" persists but doesn't change?

--So, in your view to stay the same is to change.  How very odd.

Can You grasp that there is no such thing as  "existential" inertia?

--No, it is called conservation of mass/energy and every scientific experiment performed confirms it.

It takes a true fantasy life mindset to deny that conservation of mass/energy is manifest and evident to our sense.

 

12/12/2017 10:05 am  #220


Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread

Calhoun wrote:

Do you realize that its incoherent that *all* causal series are accidental? Do you realize that if that were the case then nothing could ever really "cause" anything. Things would simply disappear before they can even act or be acted upon, there would be "no" necessary connection between "any" cause and effect? So that is why your asserted temporal-accidental series are impossible, without being undergirded by an essential one.
 Therefor, we totally do require a hierarchical regress, and You haven't shown otherwise. 
 

I tossed out the thought that in Thomism, accidental causal series are not "genuine" causal series, since all the work is done in hierarchical/essential causal series. Two people jumped in to tell me that I was wrong, that accidental causal series are "genuine."

Now a Thomist (you are one, Calhoun, no?) says that if there were only accidental causal series, nothing could "ever really 'cause'" anything. That's what I was musing over. 

So who is right? Does A-T admit "genuine" or "really causing" accidental causal series, or not? What work does the accidental series qua series do in A-T?


 

Last edited by ficino (12/12/2017 10:07 am)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum