Once again SP you prove my point, All you do and can do is assert your claims again and again adding only strawmen and ad hominems then you act as if no one has said anything in response , no one has explained the errors in above to you, no one has shown that most of above either do not refute the argument at all or how its false. Seriously, all you've done till now is prove that your getting kicked from the blog was entirely right. And all I can see right now is another richly deserved ban forthcoming. 

@Calhoun

Once again SP you prove my point, All you do and can do is assert your claims again and again adding only strawmen and ad hominems then you act as if no one has said anything in response , no one has explained the errors in above to you, no one has shown that most of above either do not refute the argument at all or how its false. Seriously, all you've done till now is prove that your getting kicked from the blog was entirely right. And all I can see right now is another richly deserved ban forthcoming.

Is this supposed to be some kind of rational argument?  Does attacking me somehow make you feel better or give you some sense that your arguments are sound?

Conservation of mass/energy is manifest and evident to our senses.  It is expressed in many different ways because it is so widely understood.  Conservation of mass/energy is a vastly evidenced scientific fact.  Do you acknowledge at least that much?

Do you understand that if mass/energy is conserved then the amount of mass energy in existence does not change?

Do you understand that if a thing does not change in a particular respect it is not *necessary* to assert a changer to account for the lack of change in that respect?

Do you realize that Feser brings to you the idea that to account for no change in the existence of mass/energy there is an invisible being that is continuously changing everything in the universe in just the right way so as to provide us all with the illusion that nothing in the universe changes in the respect of material existence?

I just don't really understand SP's objection to the existence of  essential causal series. Even if the process is temporal, involving causal members that exert their causal efficacy over time, how does it follow that such a series is accidental rather than essential? Instaneity is not necessary for a per se causal series. What is necessary is derivative causal power, a continual dependence of latter members on earlier members of the series.

RomanJoe wrote:

I just don't really understand SP's objection to the existence of  essential causal series. Even if the process is temporal, involving causal members that exert their causal efficacy over time, how does it follow that such a series is accidental rather than essential? Instaneity is not necessary for a per se causal series. What is necessary is derivative causal power, a continual dependence of latter members on earlier members of the series.

 
I have argued this repeatedly more than 10 pages ago. I even said that we could admit of a "time bomb" analysis of dependence, that is to say, if cause 1 depends on cause 2, and cause 2 ceases to exist, cause 1 will eventually cease to exist (even if it doesn't happen immediately; that is to say, it's like a time bomb that would start). This would not change the fact that what we have here is *real dependence*, that cause 1 depends on cause 2 for its continuous existence even if there's no temporal simultaneity. And that's different from accidentally ordered series of causes. So for example we as human beigs depend on oxygen in order to live, if the room we're in runs out of oxygen we will die. This is very different from the manner in which a grandfather is the cause of a grandson's existence, for if the grandfather dies after the son has been born, the son can still continue in existence and will not cease to be, either immediately or "eventually". I've said this over and over again and I believe others have also pointed out how hierarchical series of causes do not stricly require temporal simultaneity, but SP just ignores it.

Miguel wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

I just don't really understand SP's objection to the existence of  essential causal series. Even if the process is temporal, involving causal members that exert their causal efficacy over time, how does it follow that such a series is accidental rather than essential? Instaneity is not necessary for a per se causal series. What is necessary is derivative causal power, a continual dependence of latter members on earlier members of the series.

 
I have argued this repeatedly more than 10 pages ago. I even said that we could admit of a "time bomb" analysis of dependence, that is to say, if cause 1 depends on cause 2, and cause 2 ceases to exist, cause 1 will eventually cease to exist (even if it doesn't happen immediately; that is to say, it's like a time bomb that would start). This would not change the fact that what we have here is *real dependence*, that cause 1 depends on cause 2 for its continuous existence even if there's no temporal simultaneity. And that's different from accidentally ordered series of causes. So for example we as human beigs depend on oxygen in order to live, if the room we're in runs out of oxygen we will die. This is very different from the manner in which a grandfather is the cause of a grandson's existence, for if the grandfather dies after the son has been born, the son can still continue in existence and will not cease to be, either immediately or "eventually". I've said this over and over again and I believe others have also pointed out how hierarchical series of causes do not stricly require temporal simultaneity, but SP just ignores it.

Exactly. I'm trying to understand SP's argument. Is it this? That all change can be reduced to the local motion of atomic and subatomic constituents and since local motion is a process which occurs over time, with particle A having to move spatially over a course of time to affect particle B, ultimately what seems instantaneous/simultaneous is really a complex of temporal interactions--ergo, per se causal series don't exist. And, consequently, there is no need for a prime mover.

If so, then clearly this is based on a faulty assumption of what a per se causal series is.