Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Sabbatical
I am taking a two month (at least) sabbatical from the blog. I will be invoking a personal electronic and newsprint media blackout for the duration, including email. During that time I will decide whether to shut down the blog or to keep going. In the meantime, comments are open to all; I won't be reading them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
Hopefully this action also involves you no-longer posting your recycled and irrelevant nonsense(aka spam) on other people's blogs then running away when your posts are destroyed by virtue of having the fallacies, errors of logic, and lack of scientific understanding exposed for all to see?
I guess you won't be read this but I hope you come back and write more. Stay angry!
I believe the most fitting phrase is: "Good riddance to bad rubbish."
I believe the most fitting phrase for Anonymous is 'coward'.
I am really impressed with your efforts here. Tell you what, you get God to step back into the world and I will believe in him. I will not believe in writings 2000 years old where God was intimately involved in the world affairs (Jesus, prophets, floods, destruction of cities etc) and has done what since? Provided a touchdown to Tebow? A bit flimsy there and did he weigh the amount of his worship against the defenses'? Bit petty for a God in my opinion.
George Gibbs
Ah, leave it to George to accurately assess his non-existent God's motives and critique his activity. You'd be better off just saying you don't believe in Him.
Stan's right, the first thing you guys do is set yourselves up as judge and jury. That a creature could judge its Creator is a bit odd, given that it does not have omniscience, but little quibbles like that haven't stopped arrogance in the past. Why should they now?
God will never measure up to your standards, George. The real question is, will you measure up to *His*? It's not looking good.
Steve, I don't think it is possible to swing wider from the point George made than your response.
God is claimed to have historical performed miraculous feats, which since the increasingly sophisticated advances in recording devices have reduced his interactions with this world to appearing on toast and aiding a football star in scoring points.
the first thing you guys do is set yourselves up as judge and jury
As opposed to what? Abdicating any critical thinking and just believing what authority says?
Apparently expecting evidence for claims is arrogance now. Apparently sending your son forth to be murdered, destroying cities, and flooding the world are now actions above reproach if the creature performing the action is a god.
God will never measure up to your standards,
It's true that murder, genocide and wholesale destruction are pretty big stumbling blocks for your god to overcome, but I'm sure being omniscient he would KNOW exactly what my standards are, and how to meet them.
godless,
God is claimed to have historical performed miraculous feats, which since the increasingly sophisticated advances in recording devices have reduced his interactions with this world to appearing on toast and aiding a football star in scoring points.
Does your only familiarity with "religion" consist of wackadoodle fundies?
If the classical version of theism is true, then everything that occurs is an example of God interacting with the world. The wind blowing, rivers flowing, the Sun burning. Read some Aquinas and Augustine, and you won't find this silly toast and football game nonsense; in fact, I think they would be rightly appalled at such stupidity.
You think that a belief in Jesus, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or a global flood is wack-a-doodle belief?
I think there a great many who would be offended by your categorization. Not that I care who you offend.
People actually believe this shit. And news flash, your average theist does not read Aquinas or Augustine.
Additional news flash. A God who's interactions are limited to blowing, flowing and burning and otherwise indistinguishable from natural causes is pragmatically the same as no god at all. Deism at best.
I won't disagree that Aquinas and Augustine would consider your average theist a fool for what they believe.
I was raised moderate Catholic btw, and have experience with all sorts of theists. One thing I have learned that when you raise an objection to a point of doctrine, the first objection is frequently "well that's not what I believe, only fundamentalist idiots believe that, well that's out of context, well that's metaphorical, well that was only true in that day and age, etc etc etc."
Until we are left with you who limits gods intervention to blowing the wind in a manner indistinguishable from natural forces.
Since you didn't bother to respond last time, here are the objections again to Prime Mover.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml
Unless you want to go over how this universities philosophies department fails to understand the argument?
You think that a belief in Jesus, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or a global flood is wack-a-doodle belief?
No. I think that looking for God in a piece of toast or asking him to help you win the football game is wackadoodle. As for Jesus, Gomorrah, and floods, I'm not really interested in specific religious beliefs. I'm interested in whether there is a God or not. The Bible's falsity has no bearing on that question.
People actually believe this shit. And news flash, your average theist does not read Aquinas or Augustine.
Again, personally, I have no interest in people's ignorance. My interest is in what's true. The case for theism can be seen to be quite good, and in fact slam dunk, if one can forget the Bible and what religious theists are doing or not doing.
Additional news flash. A God who's interactions are limited to blowing, flowing and burning and otherwise indistinguishable from natural causes is pragmatically the same as no god at all. Deism at best.
If you are knowledgeable about how the First Way works, you will see that your objection here is like saying that every gear in the clock is explained by the motion of other gears; there is no reason to appeal to a motor. The point being: if every gear is turned by another gear, then there must be at least one ACTUATING gear in the system. That is to say, one gear that causes the turning of the other gears without itself being turned by any further gears.
Since you didn't bother to respond last time, here are the objections again to Prime Mover.
I did a write up on my blog.
I'm not really interested in specific religious beliefs.
Well that's where we differ. Beliefs inform your actions and a tremendous amount of people have wackadoodle beliefs. I'm actually interested in things that affect the real world.
The case for theism can be seen to be quite good, and in fact slam dunk
If it was a slam dunk you wouldn't be a strong agnostic. I think you just like arguing cause it makes you feel smart to put forth an argument that is near incomprehensible to the average atheist.
there is no reason to appeal to a motor.
A motor which is in all ways indistinguishable from any natural effect is not synonymous with a traditional notion of god. This is not theism. This is not a personal god. This is deism, pantheism or atheism. You are equivocating.
I did a write up on my blog.
Mmhmm and your responses are:
"I don't understand the objection.
They don't understand the argument.
I don't understand the objection.
They don't understand the argument.
They don't understand the argument.
I don't understand the objection.
They don't understand the argument."
Solid.
I'm not even being flippant. That is effectively exactly what your response consists of.
I say again, even IF the argument is a slam dunk. Even if it is a 100% mathematical proof for the existence of an originating force (which it isn't!), you still have all your work ahead of you to reach anything resembling the common notion of a god.
A motor which is in all ways indistinguishable from any natural effect is not synonymous with a traditional notion of god.
But if that motor exists, then it is omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, immaterial, etc.
So it at least gets you to God. Whether it cares about humans or not is supplementary. But that's the starting point, and if you agree, then you are no longer an atheist.
Only after agreeing that there is such a thing are we ready then to move on to whether it is or isn't personal.
Mmhmm and your responses are:
Let's take one of them:
Their claim: "Why must there be a beginning to the universe?"
Aquinas' claim: "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the universe did not always exist."
Your response: "I don't understand the objection. They don't understand the argument."
As you can clearly see, you didn't address my response to their objection at all. Despite your claims to the contrary, you ARE being flippant. Otherwise you would just say which is wrong, their claim or Aquinas'.
Advice for some atheists:
I'm crude with this, so there's some language I know many atheists won't like (I was one, recognized it), but I won't force anybody to pay me attention: First, it is a waste of time for both parties, Second, it is a cheap socialization process to force people to agree to everything the same way I do.
Presupposing to know what is the nature of what theists believe (and know), while not wanting to know, but at the same time claiming to know better than the people who experience the phenomena, is just a waste of time.
You want to be atheists, there's nothing hampering you to be such. You may, that's your will, that's your freedom of choosing.
If so, then please don't make atheism as another sort of gospel. There are too much atheistic sects and cults already. Be yourselves. Is not that the sense of freedom you wanted to have?
There are valid criticisms for theism. Not wishing to address such, that's OK, I will just let that be, I don't care: there's not need to hold a conversation; else, it is possible to debate:
(continuing below)
(continuing from that weird text above)
1) Atheists may either reinforce their actual worldview, or change their worldview, or deny to have any worldview (nihilism, sort of). To do either of the two first with some sense of property, atheists should understand the nature of what they disagree with, without resorting hastily to scientism, as it is not a complete refutation. Mere denial is arguably the easy way, respectable as such, I won't expect anything fruitful from such attitudes. There are valid criticisms from an empirical and logical perspective: use those, that's your golden tool.
Presupposing a literal personalism from every theist, or presupposing that every theist "believes" something totally different from each one another, is just a waste of time, and a waste of neurons (I'm not implictly nor explicitly calling atheists stupid, is just wasting time with misinformed and/or disrespectful opinions, and remain as such: opinions).
2) Avoid Politically Correct speech: dictating what is "pseudoscience" or not, is not the authority of Atheists for the sake of it. May I also ask, what is good science, without resorting to parroting words from scientific establishments or atheistic celebrities?? what is religion?? what is logic?? what is a myth?? am I expecting simplistic answers or value judgements or knowledgable answers?? what is a knowledgeable answer? what should people expect, from another people who are presumed to hold the title of being the ultimate bastions of reason?? what is reason?? is reason a suitable adjective for human discrimination?? who is resonable?? which are the most important prima facie arguments to get a good start to refute theism as a whole?? Are the junction of words known as pseudoscience or cargo cult science to be used as a mechanistic way to implictly express a political way of viewing this world??
Excuse me if I'm being rather crude, but, political victimization is an stupid ploy people do. I don't care. I don't mess with anybody's lifestyle, that's not even a cheap argument.
3) Spirituality is not about politics or political speech, or opinion, or regulative principles for the sake of those. Claiming to know that such does not exist, is under your responsability. Give evidence from a non-material source: that's the crux of the problem from an empirical perspective, find an adequate criticism, else let live.
4) There's dogma everywhere you may look. There's dogma in religions, there's dogma in science, there's dogma in philosophy, there's dogma in academia, there's dogma in the industry, there's dogma in cultures. It is up to you, to research further, to distinguish dogma from experiencing truthful doctrines.
Don't you want to?? That's ok, keep living your lives. Again, you won't bother too many people. At least not me. My beliefs and your beliefs don't matter by themselves.
I'm not here to say that atheists are deluded or any such stupidity like that. Either atheists and Skeptics tell me I'm deluded, when it's not a properly elaborated prima facie to start with, won't bother with me: call me a bigot, call me arrogant, call me a tyrant, call me deluded, stupid, nutjob, wacko, whatever: that won't convert me to an atheist, once again.
My intentions posited here, are not of hatred of discrimiation, although may seem to be the opposite, but are just to put issues straight: unfortunately, not with the civility required to have a thoughtful conversation, because most of the times talking with atheists, at least over here, has been proven to me , that it has not been possible. Would be good if the opposite could be demonstrated!!
Kind Regards.
Their claim: "Why must there be a beginning to the universe?"
"By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the universe did not always exist."
Your objection makes no sense.
How does something go from not existing, to existing, without beginning to exist?
What are you talking about?
So to reiterate, not flippantly, your response to the argument consists of "I don't understand the objection. They don't understand the argument.".
Maybe .. ok ... you just don't understand the objection? And maybe you don't understand the Prime Mover argument.
Whether it cares about humans or not is supplementary.
No. This is key. This is what people concern themselves with. A god that does not care or interact with humanity invalidates every theistic religion.
how can something begin without time, yo?
Martin, can you give me an example of something that does not move?
How does something go from not existing, to existing, without beginning to exist?
The argument in question has three premises. Please tell me which one says "the universe began to exist."
1, 2, or 3?
No. This is key. This is what people concern themselves with. A god that does not care or interact with humanity invalidates every theistic religion.
Sure. But this is done in steps. You are jumping the gun.
kdogg,
how can something begin without time, yo?
Good grief, the argument in question doesn't ever say that everything began (why do I need to say this to atheists 50 times before they get it?)
Hugo,
Martin, can you give me an example of something that does not move?
The conclusion of the argument is for such a thing.
The argument in question has three premises. Please tell me which one says "the universe began to exist."
It can be interpreted from Premise 3. However the supporting context is provided by your Aquinas quote.
"By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the universe did not always exist."
If the world did not always exist, then it began to exist.
If it began to exist, then it had a beginning.
Even if the argument is not explicitly about the origins of the universe (but of course it is .. the origin is supposed to be the god Yahweh), the rebuttal is still relevant.
Why must this be an essentially ordered series and not an infinite loop or cyclical series?
Sure. But this is done in steps. You are jumping the gun.
I'm not actually. I've said multiple times I couldn't care less about a deistic god. I only care about claims of a god that interacts on a personal level with his creation.
>If the world did not always exist, then it began to exist.
Yes, and as he says "by no demonstration can it be proved." He argues that it is not possible to prove with philosophical arguments that the universe began to exist. He rejects the Kalam cosmological argument.
>Even if the argument is not explicitly about the origins of the universe (but of course it is .. the origin is supposed to be the god Yahweh), the rebuttal is still relevant.
The whole point of Aquinas here is to prove the existence of God even if the universe is infinitely old. That was one of his main purposes in formulating these arguments. He rejected the Kalam cosmological argument, which says that the universe had a beginning.
Why must this be an essentially ordered series and not an infinite loop or cyclical series?
It isn't essentially ordered. It's accidentally ordered. The series of events stretching back into the past is accidentally ordered. That's exactly why Aquinas doesn't think that it can be proven that there was a beginning to the universe.
From Summa Theologica, Question 46:
"But it is not impossible to proceed to infinity accidentally as regards efficient causes...as an artificer acts by means of many hammers accidentally, because one after the other may be broken."
On hammer after another may be broken, and so this may have been going on for eternity. Similarly, one event follows another, and so the number of past events could be infinite. Therefore, there is no way to prove philosophically that the universe had a beginning.
So the objection: "why must the universe have a beginning?" that the Lander University site brings up is not a good objection. They fail to understand the argument, as most people do. Why? Why the need to apply confirmation bias to it? Why not just let the argument speak?
I've said multiple times I couldn't care less about a deistic god. I only care about claims of a god that interacts on a personal level with his creation.
Right, and to do that, the deistic God must be established first. In fact, it's not clear in what sense the Thomistic God can be said to be deistic, seeing as he continually interacts with the world.
It is an exercise in tautology and equivocation.
Things are not self-actualized, therefore there must exist a source of pure actuality.
Aquinas assumes, in other words, that every motion must either be self-caused or caused by an external thing. But it seems possible to imagine motion that is not caused at all. Aqunas seems to have ruled this out without argument.
There is no confirmation bias .. you just don't understand the objection.
Right, and to do that, the deistic God must be established first.
Disagree. It would seem simpler (if true) that a deity interacts with humanity than proving it is the foundation of all being.
In fact, it's not clear in what sense the Thomistic God can be said to be deistic, seeing as he continually interacts with the world.
If god is without Potentiality, he cannot change. As you note in your pictograms, he is immutable. He cannot even consider anything outside of himself. As Aristotle says god is "thought of thought" or "thinking about thinking". At the end of this line of argument, the conclusion is that God is unable to influence the world (change it) and we are unable to influence him. This destroys theism.
You are also equivocating when you say "interacts". Theism entails a personal relationship between god and man. An impersonal source of all being is specifically deism.
Hugo,
Martin, can you give me an example of something that does not move?
The conclusion of the argument is for such a thing.
Exactly! You just disproved your own argument.
Why? Because it starts with:
- Some things are moving.
Now you just conceded that the goal of the argument is to show that there is only 1 thing that does not move. Hence the conclusion is implied in the very first premise.
1) Some things are moving (everything but one, per your conclusion)
2) Things that are moving are being move by something else
(everything but one, per your conclusion)
The whole argument is an analogy, some things move, some don't, but when applied to reality, which is what we are discussing I hope, then the argument fails because there is nothing that does not 'move' as far as we know... In all honesty, I really don't get how it can be different than that?
kdogg,
how can something begin without time, yo?
Good grief, the argument in question doesn't ever say that everything began (why do I need to say this to atheists 50 times before they get it?)
I was mocking atheists. It's like evolution or global warming. They are infected with a blindness that stops them from thinking and makes them spout nonsense. If they weren't blinding themselves and could think clearly then they'd believe in God which is REALITY and not so-called evolution which is a lie and gloabal warming which is another lie. They are going to repeat their nonsense. Don't bother reading their replys.
Atheism- the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
Precious.
Thanks Ben.
godless,
Aquinas assumes, in other words, that every motion must either be self-caused or caused by an external thing. But it seems possible to imagine motion that is not caused at all.
Humean skepticism of causality is a modern thing, and is a whole other debate. Aquinas does not assume anything. Everything is argued for, and his causal realism comes from Aristotle's philosophy of nature, which Aquinas carefully examines and evaluates.
As Aristotle says god is "thought of thought" or "thinking about thinking".
Which Aquinas addresses in the Summa.
At the end of this line of argument, the conclusion is that God is unable to influence the world (change it)
There is no contradiction in a thing that does not change itself, but causes changes in other things. A lump of gold in a mine, for example, that causes wars.
Hugo,
Now you just conceded that the goal of the argument is to show that there is only 1 thing that does not move. Hence the conclusion is implied in the very first premise.
The first premise is that at least some things are changing (could be all, could be just some). The conclusion is not contained within the premise. I don't even know how you get that.
the argument fails because there is nothing that does not 'move' as far as we know
But the conclusion IS that there is such a thing. You can't just say "the conclusion is false as far as we know." How do you know that? The only way to deny the conclusion is to deny one of the premises.
Actually, this is more accurate:
The understanding that at the point in space-time that the singularity occurred quantum potential collapsed into sets of virtual particles / anti particle pairs due to vacuum fluctuations occasionally producing a non-zero value after which solar and planetary accretion condensed the remaining gasses into stars and planets the composition of which often includes organic chemicals which naturally form molecular bonds and in our case of autocatalytic feedback to fill the oceans of early Earth eventually increasing in sophistication, forming RNA and eventually DNA core of early single celled organisms, which evolved the capacity to live in colonies, becoming multicellular organisms like sponges, which became early intermediates like polyps which became early invertebrates which branched into vertebrates, some of which became fish, then amphibians, one of which (tiktaalik) is famously among the first to crawl onto dry land, where amphibians branched off into reptiles, which branched into both birds and mammals, some of which survived the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs, became arboreal primates, later descended and learned to walk upright in order to carry food/tools/young and of course these proto humans eventually became us!
May not seen intuitive, but that's how shit went down!
Christianity
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense. But hey I'm sure that's all metaphorical and only wack a doodle fundamentalists believe any of that. No, wait that's basically all Christians.
Precious.
There is no contradiction in a thing that does not change itself, but causes changes in other things
That's certainly debatable. However it is intrinsic to theism that God is open to our prayers. A personal relationship is a two way street. If anything you are conceding the point. To address your analogy, do you really think this lump of gold will not be changed by the war?
Godless,
I'm in a good mood these days, and there are some issues to be ironed:
It is ironic how do you expose your straw arguments about your opinions of God. Its like: "You know, I think god is a cosmic imaginary being which I think is stupid, so I believe believers are stupid".
Ego stroking, is not an argument. I just wonder, where do you presuppose what all christians believe??
What you presuppose as mere belief, is THAT important?
Is bashing Christianity THAT important to you??
I just amaze myself, about how some few Atheists are such religious devotees... with the religion of bashing what they don't want to know about. Fair enough, but works for a very limited scope.
For the sake of potentially risking myself by proposing a Tu Quoque:
If I tell you atheism is a mere belief, would you agree with me or would you try to refute such bold statement?
If [atheism is a mere belief] is true, well, it is a politically correct opinion, nothing else. You have no other choice.
What if I hypotetically, and implicitly told you that all atheists were stupid while at the same time do not give any arguments supporting such hypothesis??
That's obviously cheap baiting, and that would only infuriate some people, not only the self-righteous ones.
Unfortunately, this is what you are doing with Theism. "I don't understand it, so I bash it".
I see you still falsely believe that Theists should all believe in the inerrancy of religious scriptures: That presumption is just ridiculous. One more opinion to the opinion-chest.
I see this comment of yours is, unfortunately, full of misconceptions, that extend from previous comments:
Now:
"The understanding that at the point in space-time that the singularity occurred quantum potential collapsed into sets of virtual particles / anti particle pairs due to vacuum fluctuations occasionally producing a non-zero value after[...]"
What is a Quantum Potential?
Potential (whether static or dynamic) conceptually is the same as Energy. There's no difference. Energy is not the capacity of doing work, and it is not explained as it's own scattering or disordering. The "Collapse of virtual particles" is not an adequeate choice of words. Collapse does not indicate an ordering.
Are you sure you are not confusing it with a Potential Gradient??
There are no observable force fields in the Quantum Vacuum. Potential gradients wihtin electromagnetism, por example, define the Electrostatic and Magnetostatic properties of Electromagnetic Waves. Phase angle of the Electrostatic Scalar Potential is the conjugate of the Magnetostatic Scalar Potential.
Virtual particles are not matter per se. They are a possible Quantum Mechanics explanation about how energy interacts with matter, where energy is focused within a local energy density in any point in the space, and a particle model for quantifying energy may be used.
What is the most ironic of all, Quantum Mechanics disproves materialism.
Another thing:
Non-zero value of What?
Please explain. I'll prove my point here from some specific features of interference of waves: Phase and Amplitude.
A 180 degree phase difference of the generated waves of Virtual Particle and Virtual Anti-particle does not produce destructive interference in every case (ideally no interference at all), so a non-zero value of phase does not mean that for every case, the amplitude of the potential gradient would change.
Again, energy is not the disordering of its own doing.
How would you define the scattering of potential?
Does the scattering of potential generate matter in every case?
Nope. For example, Voltage is erroneouly defined as a Difference in Potential, when Voltage should be defined (I'm not doing this elloquently for now), as the proportion of change of the excess of local energy density where there's a scattering of a finite local energy density.
(continuing below)
(continuing from above)
Also, Would you please explain the causality which could be behind the possible oscillation of a Static Potential, not a Potential Gradient which is defined by the magnitudes of Scalar Potentials??
While analyzing, this problem still does not refute Aquinas'arguments, because potential --for the sake of doing the analogy--, is not the same thing as the energy scattering produced when a particle with mass, such as the electron (for example), does any movement to produce an electrical current (with the possible exception of superconductivity).
Potential DOES NOT imply movement. This logic may be empirically justified.
"accretion condensed the remaining gasses into stars and planets the composition of which often includes organic chemicals which naturally form molecular bonds and in our case of autocatalytic feedback to fill the oceans of early Earth eventually increasing in sophistication, forming RNA and eventually DNA core of early single celled organisms, which evolved the capacity to live in colonies, becoming multicellular organisms like sponges, which became early intermediates"
This still begs the question. Evolution theory does not have such scope. As a scientific theory, it still does not have experimental support from the possible creation of this planet, and therefore, not for the possible creation of this universe, and therefore, not for abiogenesis. So what we get from evolution as a scientific theory the changes we may see with species in times we may log, observe and experiment. No more.
You have not proved anything here, but just repeat and repeat. I expected something better from you.
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense. But hey I'm sure that's all metaphorical and only wack a doodle fundamentalists believe any of that. No, wait that's basically all Christians."
Such strawmen are so delicious I love to taste them!!
Well, that acutally made me laugh. How can an Atheist cluelessly presuppose such ridiculous thing from every christian!
Gotta love those jokes. As a theist and former atheist, I love those atheistic jokes so much (no sarcasm, I really like those).
(continuing below)
Lol it was a joke reply to Chris. I thought that was obvious. Why don't you tear apart his straw man.
Btw I if you've been paying attention I was raised christian and have plenty of experience to draw upon to reference what people actually believe.
I get that every theistis different. I've addressed this multiple times. "it's a metaphore, etc etc etc"
(continuing from above)
If god is without Potentiality, he cannot change. As you note in your pictograms, he is immutable. He cannot even consider anything outside of himself. As Aristotle says god is "thought of thought" or "thinking about thinking". At the end of this line of argument, the conclusion is that God is unable to influence the world (change it) and we are unable to influence him. This destroys theism.
You are also equivocating when you say "interacts". Theism entails a personal relationship between god and man. An impersonal source of all being is specifically deism.
So prove that God is without potentiality. That's your modus, it is necessary to happen, to make God non-existant. Prove your conclusion.
Immutability of descriptive characteristics, that means lack of change of non-personalistic "parts", does not imply the lack of potentiality.
Aristotelian logic is incomplete to be of help of describing God as it is posited within classical theism.
Though is not cousciousness, but a subset of it, though is one of the functional aspects of having the experience of being conscious.
I see you again conflate, and confuse, so many concepts: of classical theism, process theism, and theistic personalism. And that's just aiming concepts with are somehow related to christianity.
Deism is not about an impersonal view of a deity onyl, and it is not exclusive of Deism. Deism is about the induction of the possible existence of a deity from where it is not possible to interact again, but which doings may be traceable only from naturalistic sources, or in some cases, it is about a creator which is bound within this material universe. Russell's Teapot argument is terrible against Theism.
In theism and nominated variants of such there are impersonal views of the reality whose one of its names is God. One of those is Classical Theism (just for sake of relating it with christianity).
Try Harder.
Kind Regards.
@Yonose:
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense. But hey I'm sure that's all metaphorical and only wack a doodle fundamentalists believe any of that. No, wait that's basically all Christians."
I believe he, she or it is baiting you. Those sorts of statements don't even rise to the level of straw - more like smoke, and thin smoke at that. How can anyone argue about something of which they are so ignorant? The answer is: they are not arguing, they are simply rejecting it using descriptive terms that convey contempt.
He's been reduced to trolling you. I think your work here is done :)
Steve
Hugo,
"- Some things are moving.
Now you just conceded that the goal of the argument is to show that there is only 1 thing that does not move. Hence the conclusion is implied in the very first premise.
1) Some things are moving (everything but one, per your conclusion)
2) Things that are moving are being move by something else
(everything but one, per your conclusion)
The whole argument is an analogy, some things move, some don't, but when applied to reality, which is what we are discussing I hope, then the argument fails because there is nothing that does not 'move' as far as we know... In all honesty, I really don't get how it can be different than that?"
At least you admit your misunderstading about the Prime Mover argument. I think it is too hasty of you to conlude the opposite right away.
Something that does not move, which could be defined from a scientifical perspective...
...Energy!! that's right!!
Energy IS NOT the capacity of doing work, it is the ordering, the Potential. Here was an example of something that does not move.
Movement is an effect, not a cause, as obviously stated. So movement is also the scattering of a fraction of energy.
Now, what is the causation of Energy as Potential, if it is an ordering instead of its own scattering??
I leave that question to yourself.
So, it is clear that Martin presented the argument as an analogy so analysis and comparison would be far easier.
Remember that according to this argument, it is posited that an impersonal, greater reality is responsible to operate everything else.
Be careful that, by assuming you don't "see" where something is not noving, does not necessarily impliy the inmediate falsification of the argument as posited.
Skepticism about an argument, does not imply its own falsity by itself.
Research further.
Kind Regards.
@ Steve and Yonose.
The reply you are so quick to condemn as trolling was a reply to Chris, delivered in the same spirit.
Take the log out of your own eye, and unbunch your panties.
Besides which, while it may be am uncharitable description, no one has pointed out where it is wrong.
I say again, I was raised Catholic and each line specifically refers to some doctrine of belief. If you don't recognize each reference, it is because you are ignorant.
So prove that God is without potentiality. That's your modus, it is necessary to happen, to make God non-existant. Prove your conclusion.
That driving agent can be either A) just potential, B) a mix of potential and actual, or C) just actual.
(A) is logically incoherent; nothing can be just potential with no actual existence. If it were (B), then it would not be the required first member of the chain, because per premise 2 above it would require something else to change it. So, the first member must be (C): just actual, with no potentials at all.
http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.ca/2011/07/aquinas-first-way.html
Per Martin's blog. Try harder. Research further.
godless,
I note that you've dropped the issues about Lander's inability to understand the argument, and moved on to other objections (that an unchanging thing cannot answer prayers).
So I take this to mean that my refutation of their (horrible) objections was successful.
godless,
Well. I guess you are still tilting the ropes.
A god with potentiality, does not immediately imply a god which is in potential of being the self. I hope you undersand this.
You see, when you remove the attribute of potentiality from the capabilities of that entity, the necessity of such is:
a) To abide for Deism
or,
b) For such entity to not exist at all.
So, that God may be actual, does not requiere anything alse besides the self, to have the potentiality of doing anything else. God's self of pure actuality is the primary driver agent, so is the first mover, according to Aquinas' first way of reasoning.
Aquinas' First Way is not a refutation of Omnipotence, but a reinforcement of such attribute.
I guess your procedure of refutation is being done backwards.
Again, my dear friend, use modus tollens to refute something.
You are using modus ponens just to confirm what it has been posited within those arguments, and then applied them directly to some characteristics of a god, without undestanding or at least trying to refute some non-personalistic characteristics applied to God' self.
Look at the conclusions of the article, then attack the premises, if you want refute them.
I was raised catholic and ended atheist for a while too. Your charge of ignorance is with no merit.
I still disagree with the literal view of trans-substantitation, for example.
Doctrine of belief? That's something which happens with the denominations of lutherans.
But once again:
The link between religion and sipirituality, is not just a doctrine of belief.
From the knowledge of the spiritual, religions are born. A very critical study of the scriptures is necessary. A theist does not stop of being, because disagrees with the view of the inerrancy of the scrpitures, once again.
But that, is just the first issue you pointed out, with an unsupported charge of ignorance.
I'm not here to convert atheists anyway, and NEVER to convince them by force. I'm just here because some atheists should understand a bit better about what is what they are criticizing, no matter whether hey remain atheist.
Please try a bit harder :P
Kind Regards.
@Martin
The first premise is that at least some things are changing (could be all, could be just some). The conclusion is not contained within the premise. I don't even know how you get that.
...
But the conclusion IS that there is such a thing. You can't just say "the conclusion is false as far as we know." How do you know that? The only way to deny the conclusion is to deny one of the premises.
I deny both premises on the basis that the terms are ill-defined. 'Some' things are changing is meaningless if the definition of change is 'everything changes except the prime changer'.
You never say what 'changing' means in the context of the argument.
@Yonose
You want me to 'research further' what? I did not concede that I misunderstand the Prime Mover argument. Quite the opposite. I am saying: it does not work because it "cheats" by changing the definition of words from one premise to the other, from a 'literal sense' to a 'non-literal sense' used for an analogy.
Your answer regarding what does not move proves my point. You use energy because that's not something we define in terms of moving, but then you switch to potentiality. Ok, fair enough, so now you need to explain what it means to have potential or not, and why I should accept the premise that 'some things have potential, others don't' when aboslutely nothing we can talk about has no potential... except the god that the argument wants to prove.
By the way Yonose, you're condescending remarks are not necessary.
Your* condescending remarks are not necessary.
I hate to make stupid mistakes like these ;)
What's it called when you try to infer information about reality by using language instead of observation?
I note that you've dropped the issues about Lander's inability to understand the argument, and moved on to other objections (that an unchanging thing cannot answer prayers).
So I take this to mean that my refutation of their (horrible) objections was successful.
The only objection we've even addressed is your issue with their using the argument that the universe had a beginning is irrelevant to the Prime Mover Argument.
Here is where it left off:
Why must this be an essentially ordered series and not an infinite loop or cyclical series?
You corrected me in saying that it is an accidentally ordered series, not a essentially ordered series, but did not actually address the point made.
Why an ordered series and not an infinite or cyclical series?
Your reply:
Humean skepticism of causality is a modern thing, and is a whole other debate. Aquinas does not assume anything. Everything is argued for, and his causal realism comes from Aristotle's philosophy of nature, which Aquinas carefully examines and evaluates.
I found this unsatisfying as it did not actually argue the points rather you just discredited them.
The conversation moved organically to the qualities of deism vs theism and how Aquinas argues for a deity which is incompatible with theism. Prayer, immutability, etc.
Personally I feel that the issue of immutability is a stronger objection. Please note it is actually the A. objection per the Lander University website.
It'll be easier for you to quickly address this as well. Will the analogous lump of coal be effected by the war fought over it? Yes/No? I think obviously yes...
I can totally understand why you want to jump on the origins of the universe, because while relevant, it actually contributes to a misunderstanding of what the First Way entails. Especially if you don't understand the objection...
Sorry if the tremendous intellectual contributions in this excuse for a website distracted our actual reasonable discussion.
Hugo,
It is not condescendence, you see:
I'm not switching from energy to potentiality. Energy IS Potential. Is the correct concept in physics. Energy IS NOT the scattering of itself, so it implies that energy is not the capacity of doing work and therefore, it is not the capacity of doing movement. Such concept may be proved experimentally too.
I'm just making the analogy so you may understand it better that it is possible to apply it, up to some extent,to the context, according to aquinas' first way, that is all.
While taking in count the chain of reasoning:
What is prohibiting that a Prime Mover (God), could have the potential to do anything else, while being a source of pure actuality? (that would imply omniscience and omnipotence)
For example:
The evilgod argument is not the solution for the refutation of the argument, because it would imply that these type of atheists should know that God is a source of evil, while at the same time would claim that they know such entity does not exist!
If God does not exist, why is of interest knowing of the attributes of the God's self from an experiental perspective?
What I told to godless, I will tell you. Use modus tollens.
Analyze the possible attributes, then remove/add attributes, then understand where does the chain of reasoning leads to, then refute the premise, then there should be a way to empirically/experientially confirm or refute your refutation of the argument.
The impersonalistic view of a supreme entity may be brought by induction of the knowledge of nature, like Deism (with the parsimony it entails), but also in a more direct way: by the knowledge of the spiritual. That's the problem when discussing theism/deism/agnosticism/atheism, etc etc.
Where does the chain of reasoning about something you know or don't know about, or don´t want to, may go??
That's where things are difficult to discuss. Distinguihsing a real experience from a hoax becomes difficult, that is, if there's not enough knowledge on the subject. I say this knowing that not everbody would be satisfied with it.
Like godless, you are jumping directly to give attributes directly to a god, without following a chain of reasoning.
Again, Martin's arguments are by examples and analogy, so they may be much easier to understand. But like godless, should be careful to not bypass the whole argument to discuss only the premises.
I hope you understand I'm not here to convert atheists, as it is not my interest.
Kind Regards.
In defense of Godless, I was the person behind the last batch of trash talk. The zombie reply was not unprovoked. A little fun every once in while.
Yonose said:
Hugo,
It is not condescendence, you see:
I'm not switching from energy to potentiality...
Yonose, obviously, this is NOT the part I was talking about. An example of you being condescendant is:
I'm just here because some atheists should understand a bit better about what is what they are criticizing
Nobody cares about a comment like this. I can say something similar about you: Learn to organize your thoughts and write them in proper English.
Now, I will wait for Martin to reply since, unlike you, he does these 2 things correctly.
Hugo,
" I'm just here because some atheists should understand a bit better about what is what they are criticizing"
Well, that's OK, if you don't want to keep a conversation. I won't force anyone to read me :)
I don't know why did you even consider yourself that such piece of text, would be even directed or applied to you, as I wrote that to godless, and you took it personally.
Pejorative naming for me from your part, is a good way to say a
good bye.
I'll keep mentioning, wheter you like it or not, that if you claim unfairness in some arguments, you should not cut through them too hastily, that is all.
Martin's arugments, again, are obviously analogies which make the argument much easier to understand.
Analogous to math, in theology, one way to know more about the nature of God is by making some "approximations", which is by now, argumentated by analogies and examples.
By the way, English is not my native language :P and I'm not actualy living in an english-speaking country, so I apologize if my English is not the best.
Don't take this as hipocrisy from my part, as I'm being honest and I'm not here to be intolerant with people anymore in this site, as it is not worth anyone's time.
Kind regards.
But you are still going to Hell with the other unbelievers. Can't change the facts.
Hey thanks Chris. Your comment really didn't bother me, I just responded in kind. What I found telling however was how everyone jumped all over me for the response, but completely ignored your instigation.
I also feel it is telling that despite claim of me trolling or using straw man, no one has the courage to actually point out anything in that post which does not obviously reference a point of Christian doctrine.
Yonose. Honestly it's pretty hard to figure out any sort of point you are attempting to make. The points I can comprehend frequently contradict the arguments you are attempting to support. Good luck with your English.
Martin. It's been a week with no response, should I take this as an acceptance that the First Way is a terrible argument?
Can you at least recognize why the argument is not convincing?
Frankly, I think this blog should stay up. It's an excellent example of how futile are the attempts to discredit the non-belief in the non-existent.
Godless,
I'd be surprised if that kind of stuff bothered you. And your response cracked a smile out of me.
As far as the First Way being a terrible argument- I don't think so. I think Martin's defense has been pretty good, better than I think I could do. But, with no disrespect to either Martin or Stan, if you drop in at the Thomist epicenter- EdwardFeserblog, I'm inclined to say that your objections to the First Way would be thoroughly thrashed.
godless,
I bowed out because it was getting too noisy. There was a lack of focus.
My original point is that the unmoved mover causes everything to occur. But to see that, one needs a good grasp of the argument.
If you would like to proceed, there is only one way to go. You recite the argument back to me first before trying to debunk it. That avoids the possibility of attacking a straw man. It's the method used in the Middle Ages.
So, if you would like to talk about the argument from change, then see if you can recite it back to me just to see if you understand it first.
Is "not moving" possible?
What's it called when you use properties of things inside the universe to apply to the universe itself?
@yonose
My bad... the point was not to insult you; the point was to mention how useless it is to be condescending and insulting. I did it myself only as an example.
I also tried to make you understand 1 mistake you made when you wrote:
It is not condescendence, you see:
I'm not switching from energy to potentiality
Did you get what your mistake was or not? You certainly did not acknowledge it...
Personally, one reason why I stop discussing with people is because they don't correct mistakes that are pointed out to them. For example, I remember discussing NDEs with you, something like a year ago I believe. You gave me a link to some articles and a book. When I started reading the book, I pointed out several flaws, some of which gave me good reasons to stop reading the thing entirely. Instead of acknowledging the flaws, you replied that I needed to research more and that the book should still be read.
Yonose, in other words, you keep insisting that others should learn more about what they are talking about before discussing, while you keep making mistakes yourself without any indication of self-correction.
By the way, English is not my first language either and up until last February I was not living in an English-speaking country... In any case, I should not have mentioned the language at all because it's not an issue. Your English is perfectly fine for online conversations.
However, I do think that organizing your thoughts is an issue sometimes. So if we end up discussing something, whatever it could be, don't assume that 'I don't understand' means that I don't understand the subject. Chances are that I simply don't get what you are trying to get to...
@Martin
It's unfortunate that you get distracted by other comments, but I do understand what you mean. Even if people quote each other and put names at the beginning of their comments, there is no core discussion going on most of the time.
In any case, let me re-post my objections with the Prime Mover argument by following your suggestion and trying to re-phrase the first premises myself:
Premise 1) Some things are in state X
Premise 2) All things that are in state X are being Xed by something that is not in state X
Premise 3) The chain of things in state X cannot be infinitely long
No need to go further to explain the problems I see with the argument. It is made evident by the fact that I can re-write the argument with X instead of moving/changing/potential/etc...
Objection 1) The problem is that the argument claims that 'some' things are in state X and other are not, but without ever explaining exactly what it means to be in state X. It is an analogy that refers to nothing specific.
Objection 2) Even when the definition of state X is made clear, the argument tricks the reader into accepting premise 1 by using something such as 'things are moving; others are not', only to switch to a more literal version of 'moving': everything in the universe is found to be moving (yes, even energy) except the thing that we want to prove exists, which is the head of the moving chain.
Objection 3) The argument claims that an infinite chain of things in state X cannot exist. I agree with that, but partially. The point is that we cannot prove that the chain is infinitely long, so we are not justified in believing that it is; but we also cannot prove that it is not infinitely long, so we are not justified to believe that either. Hence, I think it's wrong to interpret the statement 'the chain cannot be infinitely long' when it comes to discussing all that exists. It is possible that existence always existed and that there is thus no head.
Objection 4) For the sake of discussion, even if we are to grant that there must be a 'non-X' at the source of all 'X', then we get to know absolutely nothing about this 'non-X'. The only thing we can say is that it is not in state 'X'. We don't define things that exist by what they are not; we define things by what they are. To prove the point, we can do this simple thought experiment: All that exists is caused to exist by something else that exists. Because there cannot be an infinite chain of existing things, there must be a non-existing thing that causes everything to exist. This non-existing thing is what will be referred to as 'pure actuality', but it cannot be differentiated from nothing.
Please correct any mistakes Martin!
Stephen Satak
Stan's right, the first thing you guys do is set yourselves up as judge and jury. That a creature could judge its Creator is a bit odd, given that it does not have omniscience, but little quibbles like that haven't stopped arrogance in the past. Why should they now?
What an idiot. Doesn't he have the intelligence to realize that whenever xians talk about their god's alleged "goodness", moral perfection or "holiness" that: they are also judging him?
Then he goes off to criticize an atheist for doing it because the creation has no right to judge the creator?
Just as arrogant as those he criticizes but too stupid or self-righteous to see how hypocritical he is for doing so.
I'll just point out that Steven's claim that biblegod has "omniscience" rings hollow, given the number of mathematical and observational natural errors that the bible has.
@Reynold: if YOU say so!
Wow, no wonder Stan doesn't want anything to do with your sort. First thing you do is insult me, then question my intelligence (again), then call me 'arrogant' (but apparently no more so than the ones I am 'criticizing') and then call me stupid and accuse me of being self-righteous. AND a hypocrite, for good measure.
Are you sure you haven't forgotten any other insults? You repeated a couple there - maybe you've shot your quiver? Your self-assurance that I am, indeed, all these things leaves me breathless. What more is left to be said?
Typical atheism - all bluster and shouting, but precious little substance. Worship at the altar of Reynold must be an... exhilarating experience. Don't let me stop you! But don't expect me to join you, either.
Steve
Closing down this blog. Why? Your articles are really beneficial. Let hem coming.
Steven
Wow, no wonder Stan doesn't want anything to do with your sort. First thing you do is insult me, then question my intelligence (again),...
And why? You failed to deal with the reason that I "insulted" you. I had pointed out that xian also judge your own god whenever he does something "good". Yet you don't see the inconsistency in that when you criticize atheists for doing so.
then call me 'arrogant' (but apparently no more so than the ones I am 'criticizing') and then call me stupid and accuse me of being self-righteous. AND a hypocrite, for good measure.
Again, did you ever stop to think why I did that? Here's a hint: Read what I said and try thinking about it.
Are you sure you haven't forgotten any other insults? You repeated a couple there - maybe you've shot your quiver? Your self-assurance that I am, indeed, all these things leaves me breathless. What more is left to be said?
Just that you have dealt with none of the points that I brought up but instead just acted all sore about being called out on how you act.
Typical atheism - all bluster and shouting, but precious little substance.
Uh, Hello? I was the one who brought up points that you have completely failed to address. My "insults" to you are just observations.
You on the other hand have made a broad generalization about all atheists without backing it up.
Worship at the altar of Reynold must be an... exhilarating experience. Don't let me stop you! But don't expect me to join you, either.
Now where did you get the idea that I idolize myself? Let me guess: It's just another false idea you have about atheists, that we worship ourselves.
60+ posts and I've yet to see a convincing argument for atheism here.
Interesting.
@Morgan
What would an argument 'for' atheism be?
You mean something that proves that no god exists?
But that would depend on the definition of god given by the believer. Hence, refuting Aquina's First Way, as shown above, is an example of such argumentation 'for' Atheism... no?
60+ posts and I've yet to see a convincing argument for theism here.
Interesting.
nagroM,
See my article here:
http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-argument-from-change-in-plain.html
Is this gonna be an argument that starts off with how things work IN the universe and applies that TO the universe itself?
Anon,
I agree with Stan; pick a name. Too hard to distinguish all the anons.
See for yourself. You can comment on my blog.
"Is this gonna be an argument that starts off with how things work IN the universe and applies that TO the universe itself?"
Pretty much.
nagroM,
It isn't. As you can clearly see, take any example of change. Water freezing to ice.
That's all the argument requires. It never talks about the universe as a whole.
"Is this gonna be an argument that starts off with how things work IN the universe and applies that TO the universe itself?"
It's not "how things work", it's "how things appear to work"... and Martin has tagged it "cosmological argument, theism" so you are right about where it'll end up when he continues it.
I have yet to hear any cogent response to the argument in question. Comments are open at my blog.
Well nothing is new in what Martin posted; so my objections, ignored by theists in the room, stand:
*******
Re-writing the argument in my own words, as suggested by Martin up here yields:
Premise 1) Some things are in state X
Premise 2) All things that are in state X are being Xed by something that is not in state X
Premise 3) The chain of things in state X cannot be infinitely long
No need to go further to explain the problems I see with the argument. It is made evident by the fact that I can re-write the argument with X instead of moving/changing/potential/etc...
Objection 1) The problem is that the argument claims that 'some' things are in state X and other are not, but without ever explaining exactly what it means to be in state X. It is an analogy that refers to nothing specific.
Objection 2) Even when the definition of state X is made clear, the argument tricks the reader into accepting premise 1 by using something such as 'things are moving; others are not', only to switch to a more literal version of 'moving': everything in the universe is found to be moving (yes, even energy) except the thing that we want to prove exists, which is the head of the moving chain.
Objection 3) The argument claims that an infinite chain of things in state X cannot exist. I agree with that, but partially. The point is that we cannot prove that the chain is infinitely long, so we are not justified in believing that it is; but we also cannot prove that it is not infinitely long, so we are not justified to believe that either. Hence, I think it's wrong to interpret the statement 'the chain cannot be infinitely long' when it comes to discussing all that exists. It is possible that existence always existed and that there is thus no head.
Objection 4) For the sake of discussion, even if we are to grant that there must be a 'non-X' at the source of all 'X', then we get to know absolutely nothing about this 'non-X'. The only thing we can say is that it is not in state 'X'. We don't define things that exist by what they are not; we define things by what they are. To prove the point, we can do this simple thought experiment: All that exists is caused to exist by something else that exists. Because there cannot be an infinite chain of existing things, there must be a non-existing thing that causes everything to exist. This non-existing thing is what will be referred to as 'pure actuality', but it cannot be differentiated from nothing.
I replied on my blog.
Post a Comment