Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Stardusty Psyche's thread

**Posted by StardustyPsyche** 12/07/2017 10:11 am

@grod #159
"As far as I know Prof. Feser never made comment either way, maybe because the whole issue is irrelevant for his particular purposes"
--Nonsense. The key notion of ancient physics that an object in motion will naturally come to rest unless acted upon by another object is critical to using the First Way as an argument for the *necessity* of a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment to account of observed uniform linear motion.

**It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other**

On the Aristotelian world view of motion that is indeed a very powerful argument for a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment.

On modern science that primary argument of Aquinas utterly fails.

Motion of an object persists because it is no change in its kinetic energy, no change necessitates no changer.

The failure of the First Way is just that simple to see. Feser has never addressed this simple disproof of A-T, he is only capable of calling names, having a public temper tantrum, scolding his followers, and deleting posts that prove him wrong. Wake up folks, you are being scammed for book sales.

**Posted by Miguel** 12/07/2017 12:09 pm

Already explained hpw the arguments do not require temporal simultaneity in 149, and how they only need a very modest view of causal dependence which is, after all, what hierarchical series are all about. Add act/potency or existence into the mix and you get the arguments. Stardusty's comments do not even touch on what I said in 149, the argument is independent of his view on temporal simultaneity and inertia as he understands it.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 12/07/2017 3:45 pm

SP never properly addresses refutations of his points. We've had 17 pages of this thread to show that. He would be saying the same things til kingdom come, or until there's a bug in his spam bot programming.

**Posted by grodrigues** 12/07/2017 5:08 pm

"Nonsense."

I hate emojis, being the written equivalent of grunts and squeaks, but for once I wish there was one for showing the middle finger.

**Posted by bmiller** 12/07/2017 9:13 pm

Live long and prosper grod.🖖

**Posted by bmiller** 12/07/2017 9:22 pm

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
SP never properly addresses refutations of his points. We've had 17 pages of this thread to show that. He would be saying the same things til kingdom come, or until there's a bug in his spam bot programming.

Yep. His only goal is to annoy. Or perhaps to set a Guinness record for getting banned from the most blog sites in the shortest amount of time. He seems to take pride in that.

**Posted by bmiller** 12/07/2017 9:37 pm

ficino wrote:
Feser often concludes that some aspect of contemporary theory in physics either requires A-T metaphysical theses or comes close to them or does not conflict with them. So I am trying to get straight how much of A-T physics Feser thinks also stands.

As grod mentioned, physics as such is not a concern of Dr. Feser. He is interested in metaphysics.

Physics and Metaphysics are different things. Science and Philosophy of Science are different things.
For instance, "From nothing, nothing comes" is not a physics statement, but a metaphysical statement. But contemporary theory in physics requires this, as did classical physics, as did Aristotelian physics.

Are you unaware that there is a difference?

**Posted by StardustyPsyche** 12/07/2017 11:26 pm

@bmiller #167
"From nothing, nothing comes" is not a physics statement"
--Of course it is. That is part of conservation of mass/energy.

Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

That is why E=mcc has no poof term. Physics bmiller, learn it.

**Posted by StardustyPsyche** 12/07/2017 11:33 pm

@bmiller
"His only goal is to annoy."
--How do you know my goals? Are you god?

Last edited by StardustyPsyche (12/08/2017 12:11 am)

**Posted by StardustyPsyche** 12/07/2017 11:52 pm

@Miguel
"Already explained hpw the arguments do not require temporal simultaneity in 149"
--In #149 you begin to prove my point for me, thank you.

You acknowledge the hand, the muscle and back and back and back. and the air, plants, water cycle and back and back and back are "exactly the point".

I have asserted
The First Way fails as an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment to account for observed motion.

Clearly, by allowing for these ancient past events there is no first mover *necessary* to be acting *in the present moment* to account for observed motion.

To account for observed motion we use a temporal regress analysis, going back and back and back in time and space, not extending hierarchically in the here and now.

Feser claims that the First Way is not about going back in time, rather going down, as it were, in the present moment. Yet at other times he allows for propagation delay and the assigned "first" member not being first, obviously setting up a temporal regression analysis into the deep past, at least as far back as the big bang.

He has succeeded in his con game by confusing people like you into buying his books and paywall articles. Or maybe he is just that idiotic in spite of his education.