Timocrates wrote:

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

I think I'm going to create a new topic and present SP's arguments as a disputatio. That would help a lot, because while the individual is clearly confused (at best) about his ideas, they're still interesting as they are.
I think I could be the opponens, if someone wants to do either the questio and the respondens, it would make a good exercise. Then, if a confirmed Thomist would produce the determinatio, that would be great.
What do you guys think?

Take his various arguments, reword them into their strongest or best form, then respond to each in kind? Sounds like a solid method and strategy

Spoken like a true Thomist!
Well, how could we start steelmanning some of them, to begin with?

DanielCC wrote:

Do you know what's more interesting than Stardusty Psyche? Scotus's philosophy, that's what.

The Libertarian Foundations of Scotus's Moral Philosophy
 

I like the Doctor Subtilis, but I'm not familiar enough with his arguments. I'm too much of a Thomist for that. :D
Perhaps this could be the foundation for a disputatio... speaking of libertarianism and thomism, the first thing coming to my mind is Buridan's ass.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Inertia, the observation of the continuation of motion for an object in uniform linear motion, makes the claim of *necessity* in the First Way false.

This is a general response to the claim and not a specific response to Stardusty. Even if the claim 'Everything that is moved is moved by another' is not necessarily one could defend the more modest premise that it is contingently true i.e. there is at least one possible world where everything that is moved is moved by another.

That claim coupled with the standard modal system (S5) is enough to lead to sleepless nights on the atheist's part. Remember: with most theistic arguments it is enough that are possibley true - if the argument concludes to the existence of a necessary being and said being exists in one world then...

Last edited by DanielCC (12/15/2017 5:35 pm)

@Timocrates #228

SP if it helps you to understanding why even an object in uniform linear motion in free space is still only the actualization of a potentiality, consider that any number of things or impediments could negate or alter that motion in any number of ways

No, there has never been a confirmed scientific measurement of motion being "negated".  An object in uniform linear motion, to use the rather awkward A-T terms, is already fully actualized in its kinetic energy respect.

e.g. the moving object might encounter a gravitational body sufficient to cancel it and unite the moving object rather to itself (and for simplicity let's assume the gravitational body is stationary as there is nothing impossible about this) and render it, too, stationary.

No.  That never happens.  Two objects in space mutually attract each other by the force of gravity, in the Newtonian model, or spacetime is curved, as it were, in the GR model.  In either case, both bodies are accelerated as they move toward each other.  If you drop a rock it is obvious that the rock is accelerated toward the Earth, what is less obvious is that the Earth is accelerated toward the rock by a calculable amount.

Indeed, potentially the moving object might even be accelerated further in some circumstances. If a moving object's motion were not merely potential than it would be simply or absolutely impossible to stop or alter its motion in any respect but clearly this is impossible: what object possesses such a motion?

--It is impossible to stop the kinetic energy of an object in motion, only to transfer it.  That energy is already fully actualized in its existence and cannot be destroyed,

This can be seen when a large space object enters the atmosphere and then hits the ground.  The kinetic energy of the object is transferred to kinetic energy of air molecules and of the ground as heat, which is molecular kinetic energy or molecular motion.

Perhaps we could imagine some ideal circumstance where there is a universe that an object's motion would never be impeded: fine, but it could still be impeded potentially if we posited other objects with the sufficient power to negate or absorb its kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy can never be negated, that is caused to cease to exist.  It can be transferred or transformed, but no new mass/energy has ever been experimentally measured to persistently come into existence, and no existing mass/energy has ever been measured to persistently go out of existence.

In an absolutely actualized local motion, presumably there would have to be some infinite property or characteristic about this object but in physics infinities are never entertained in terms of power particularly as they are absolutely destructive of anything finite, which presumably the object itself is.

Aquinas said "But this cannot go on to infinity"
His mistake was that there is no necessity of "this" to begin with.  There is no necessity for a hierarchy of movers to account for observed motion so there is no need to consider a very large set of "anothers" and consider that there could not be an infinity of "anothers".  There are 0 "anothers" so no consideration of infinity is necessary.
 

@SteveK #229

Don't take my word for it

Ok

@FSC

Perhaps he finally realised he wasn't making arguments, just repeating the same refuted claims all over again.

In an argument a claim is known as a premise.  Conclusions follow logically from the premises, or claims.

My premises, logic, and conclusions have been stated many times in various wordings. 
Which premises specifically do you say are false and why?
What logic of mine do you say is invalid and why specifically?
What conclusions of mine do you say are unsound on the merits, and for what specific reasons?

If you want to see the arguments as I presented them early on you can go to #7 and #8.  There are many posts after that wherein I restate the premises (claims), logic, and conclusions.

I have not noticed any sound refutations of my claims, logic, or conclusions from you or anybody here.  Namecalling does not count in my view, although it seems to be very popular among good Christians, particularly of the Feserite sort.