@Seigneur #298
StardustyPsyche wrote:Since uniform linear motion is not a change...

I'ts not even a change in location?

Location is relative to a system reference frame, not an intrinsic property of an object. 

You are moving at 66,000 mph around the solar system, and 430,000 mph around the galaxy.  You do not detect any changes within yourself associated with those motions.  Those motions are not changing you.

If you get in a car and are accelerated, you detect that change.  That is a temporal process accounted for with a temporal regression analysis of the car, engine, fuel, air, and back and back...not a hierarchical regression.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

@FSC
"Good luck if you can make SP engage you, seigneur. I tried, and he basically will not answer but vagueness information. If I'm lucky, he'll probably engage my last post in ten pages or more."

Time is my enemy, it sometimes seems to me.  I do appreciate any thoughtful engagement, The 10 pages later aspect is me catching up on interesting points when I am able.

Much of what you bring up has actually already been answered, but perhaps you did not read every post, or did not recognize the answer as such, or have a further light to shed, so, as I said previously, then I take another attempt directly to try to find some better words.

And as I told you, I very much enjoy arguments, but when what you quote sums up as "Aquinas is wrong", then we go nowhere.
I don't argue using anything else but my own arguments, and I haven't started arguing with you yet. I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying, because if you look at my last post, things as you present are incoherent.
Perhaps it's because I didn't do any work, perhaps I'm as you would say idiot, perhaps I'm a dense theist, but when you come right here with the durr you're wrong, I won't have any interest in debating. I know plenty of people IRL who claim they're right and who don't want to engage in a discussion. If it's your case, call it quit.

Now, as I put, I have numbered the points for you to answer. I don't have lot of time either, but I try to be efficient.

grodrigues wrote:

 And even his argument for the premise is wrong, because even if it were true that motion is a relation between substances, it clearly is a real relation. From this it follows that either the object changes (because the relation changes and therefore the relata changes), or local motion is not an instance of change in which case it is irrelevant to the First Way. Now, of course, you being dumb as a bag of hammers will not see an argument here or anywhere, because as I said before, you wouldn't recognize one even if it bit your nose off.

This. This has been pointed out to Dusty for months and months and months. He refuses to admit to either option, a) the real change or b) the irrelevancy to the First Way.

@FSC #276

StardustyPsyche wrote:@FSC
Actually, I have answered these questions in various ways, but I will give it a more directed response here.
You didn't until now. So, here's my following input in response to your answers, and a guide for your subsequent answers.
 
StardustyPsyche wrote:Right, which is a temporal process, not a hierarchical causal series.
<snip>
With a temporal process wherein no new material came into existence or ceased to exist.  Material was temporally removed from your car but continued to exist elsewhere.  Already existent material was added to your car.  The new brake pads and brake fluid did not suddenly materialize out of nothing, nor did the worn brake pads blink out of existence.

i) So, if I get you right, for you, my car is a temporal process, correct? When does it start? When does it end? If I change my brakes, the material of my old brakes and the material of my new brakes is not the same. Do my car exist apart from our minds? I'd take you say no to this, saying that my car is a shorthand for "the blob of matter containing X, Y...".

The material of your car exists independent of minds. We can analyze its organization with various levels of abstraction.

ii) I agree that no material is added from nothing. Though, the function of the blob of matter called now my car is to be driven, receive fuel, etc. Do you agree that the function changed? Or, if you don't agree, can you state where does the new function comes from?

Function or purpose is a human abstraction.  The car does not know it is supposed to start and drive down the road.

You're not allowed to just say "it emerged", because that would be just stating "it changed". You are allowed to say "it emerged from ..." and continue your answer.

No new thing can "emerge".  The whole is the sum, as it were, of the parts, no more, no less.
 
Everything that exists. Material, as in materialist.

Then I reject that definition. Because you're saying that
a) Everything that exists is material/matter.
b) Matter is everything that exist.
It serves no purpose in our discussion, as it has nothing to compare to; and adding "material" changes nothing to the primitive "exists". Saying "x exists" or "x is material" has no difference.

That which exists never changes in its existential respect.  Whatever material, whatever stuff, that is existent, irrespective of the name you give it, at base continues to exist in the same amount.

Thus the Second Way fails as an argument for the *necessity* of a first changer to continually change things in just the right way so that they appear to be unchanged in their existential respect. 

iii) Though, if I take your definition, how do you distinguish between my car is material and the constituents of my car are material?

Your car is an organization of its constituents.  Constituents have spacial relationships to each other and interact with each other as modeled with fields.
 
How many words are there for water?  Ice, water, steam, vapor, snow...words have etymologies that go back to ancient times

That doesn't help your case as it's a false example. Ice refers to "solidified cold water", which is not just water, as it's a qualificative.
I understand you want to blur the lines as much as you can to get away with your free Aquinas is wrong card, but I doubt it will happen.
So, still stands :
iv) Why are there two words for matter and energy ? Is it because they're distinguishable ?

I am surprised you do not grasp the analogy. Matter refers to, in a very rough manner of speaking, "solidified" energy.
 
Indeed, E=mcc.  Conversion is also conservation.  Note the absence of any poof term.  No material gets in or out

Conversion is a conservative temporal process,  Since there is no change in the amount of material during a temporal conversion process there is no call for an existential changer at all, much less a consideration of a regress of existential changers terminating in an existential first changer, a sustainer of existence moment to moment.

v) Regarding v), does it mean, that, for you, when an electron hits a positron, since (at least) two gamma photon are created, there is no creation, no change and not any single difference? Is it what you are saying ?

There is no change in the amount of material in existence.  Using E=mcc the energy of the photons is equivalent to the mass of the electron-positron. The structure of the material changed, but the amount of material did not change.

Particle mass is often expressed in electron volts, which is a unit of energy.  They are equivalent.  All reactions conserve material, thus making the Second Way false on modern science and only a wild speculation about an *unnecessary* invisible being.

vi) Even if the two (or more) photons have exactly the same energy as the couple used to produce them, you're actually saying that nothing has changed? Is it really what you are saying?

Nothing has changed in its respect of existence, in its aspect of existence, in the amount of material in existence, therefore the Second Way is false as an argument for *necessity*  because there is no *necessity* for a changer to account for no change.

The Second Way argues for a first changer to keep things in existence, also known as continuous divine creation or divine conservation.  That first changer is *unnecessary*  to account for continued existence of material because material does not change in its existence, it only changes arrangement, not its existence.  No change in existence means no changer of existence is *necessary*, and the Second Way argues for *necessity* so I have proved the Second Way is false.


 

@grod #305

or local motion is not an instance of change in which case it is irrelevant to the First Way

Well, at least you managed to take one baby step in the right direction.

Uniform linear motion is not an instance of change of kinetic energy, and therefore is irrelevant to the First Way.
Acceleration is a temporal change and is therefore irrelevant to the First way.
All real material changes that are manifest and evident to our senses require some combination of uniform linear motion and acceleration, therefore all real material changes that are manifest and evident to our senses are irrelevant to the First Way.

Since all real material changes that are manifest and evident to our senses are irrelevant to the First Way I have proved the First Way fails as an argument for a hierarchical first changer to account for real material changes that are manifest and evident to our senses.

If you really were who you say your are you would understand the obvious failures of Aquinas throughout his Five Ways, and you would not use idiotic terms like "local motion".  More likely you are a Brazilian kid who found that ID on line but is completely incapable of imitating the scientific capacities of a real mathematical physicist.