tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7336708535294548699..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Feser on atheists and the cosmological argumentmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79527334791865097312012-08-31T20:04:27.520-04:002012-08-31T20:04:27.520-04:00With all respect, friend, you STILL don't get ...With all respect, friend, you STILL don't get it. Aristotle and Aquinas' argument does not rest on knowledge of matter, energy, the origin of time, or the origin of the universe. It is not a scientific argument but a purely logical one that looks at ontology, a branch of philosophy which reasons about existence itself. You are correct when you say that nothing ever comes into existence if you mean that nothing can come from nothing. The question then is, how did anything, including the physical laws themselves, come to exist? Note that this holds even if the physical laws dictate an eternally existing universe or a sequential, fixed-time origin "Big Bang" universe, or indeed any universe with physical laws within it. All it requires is for the universe in question to just exist. What Aristotle and Aquinas mean is that anything which exists is contingent, in other words, something that must not necessarily exist. If it is contingent, then its existence must depend on something that must necessarily exist. Another way to put it is that the universe at one point was potential, not actually existing; it then became actual when acted upon by something that was pure actuality, or existence itself. For a more complete explanation of potentiality/actuality or contingency/necessity you have to hit the philosophy texts, preferably one like Feser's Aquinas written by an expert in the field. Please don't reply by saying you'd rather not-- if you wanted to know about neurosurgery, you know you have read a book written by a neurosurgeon, right? And you don't want to look like an ignoramus, right? (Dean Wormer's remark to Flounder comes to mind)...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62262670319009948592012-05-24T15:46:41.005-04:002012-05-24T15:46:41.005-04:00Egnor has lied over and over again in his blog, so...Egnor has lied over and over again in his blog, so why would anyone expect him to tell the truth about censoring comments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12655541670290654072012-05-03T19:08:21.960-04:002012-05-03T19:08:21.960-04:00I tried to respond to your statement that you neve...I tried to respond to your statement that you never delete comments, but my response was deleted.<br /><br />--Rick KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-768928579905715012012-05-02T21:47:36.073-04:002012-05-02T21:47:36.073-04:00I haven't deleted any comments of yours, and I...I haven't deleted any comments of yours, and I have only deleted one comment in the history of this blog-- a disgusting racist comment by troy. <br /><br />I welcome your comments-- I'm not the censor here. <br /><br />It may be in the spam filter. I have trouble checking the filter from this computer. I'll check as soon as I can.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62044873361217127802012-05-02T18:29:27.483-04:002012-05-02T18:29:27.483-04:00Since you have proven, in post after post, a compl...Since you have proven, in post after post, a complete inability to get from "first cause" to the God of the tribes of Israel, you've failed to demonstrate that your understanding is any deeper than Wikipedia, Michael.<br /><br />Well done.<br /><br />Now, are you going to delete this comment too?RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57690668894713040272012-05-02T17:12:28.554-04:002012-05-02T17:12:28.554-04:00...a way to make money by selling snake-oil...
T...<i>...a way to make money by selling snake-oil...</i> <br /><br />Thanks. This is a perfect description of Dicky Dawkins! God bashing is a good investment...<br /><br /><i>...to the congregation.</i><br /><br />Thanks again. I always knew atheism was a (f**ked up) religion. I bet you would have The God Delusion replace Gideon Bibles in hotels!<br /><br /><i>...you don’t need to study philosophy...</i><br /><br />It shows that you did not study philosophy. Why do you like to shoot yourself in the foot?<br /><br /><i>...which takes about five minuets.</i><br /><br />As Dawkins said, we dance to your gene and it's a minuet! :PPépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46319508480258844622012-05-02T14:47:12.704-04:002012-05-02T14:47:12.704-04:00"They pointed out that even an eternally exis..."<i>They pointed out that even an eternally existing thing does not necessarily contain the cause for its own existence.</i>"<br /><br />You miss the point - nothing ever "comes into existence", it is merely matter and energy changing form. And since we <i>can't say anything</i> about anything that was prior to the Big Bang, we can't say anything about what what things could or could not be caused by prior to the Big Bang, themselves or otherwise. Aquinas is junk when it comes to establishing ultimate causes, since Aquinas assumes information that is simply not available.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54159712853867657252012-05-02T13:45:56.259-04:002012-05-02T13:45:56.259-04:00Edward “feel free to pick up a copy or three of my...Edward “feel free to pick up a copy or three of my book” Feser is a smart guy. He’s figured out a way to make money by selling snake-oil to the congregation.<br /><br />The fact is you don’t need to study philosophy and develop a great understanding of metaphysics to know Aquinas and his modern-day followers are full of shit. You can safely stop your studies as soon as it becomes obvious that it’s total crap, which takes about five minuets.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71278511925470047702012-05-02T11:58:43.349-04:002012-05-02T11:58:43.349-04:00KW has now joined anon and RickK in the Philistini...KW has now joined anon and RickK in the <a href="http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism" rel="nofollow">Philistinism Movement</a>!Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64882400377330631892012-05-02T10:32:06.473-04:002012-05-02T10:32:06.473-04:00“Aquinas showed rigorously that the only thing tha...“Aquinas showed rigorously that the only thing that can be the cause of its own existence is an entity in which essence (what it is) and existence (that it is) are identical. He also showed that it must be simple (without parts) and pure actually, without potentiality.”<br /><br />How simple? It seems to me that all religions rely on a fairly complicated God or Gods. I don’t see how a God that necessarily underpins all of existence as a constant causal force while maintaining an intellect and relationships with his creations can be simple. How does something without parts have a thought? Of course if something has no parts, then there can be no change of relationship between those parts, and thus no potential for thought or purposeful action.<br /><br />It’s far less problematic to imagine that quantum systems boot-strap themselves into existence by their very quantum nature, and that at least one such self contained quantum fluctuation contained an inflation field resulting in a flat universe full of matter and gravity with zero net energy. <br /><br />It’s far more reasonable and potentially far more scientifically fruitful to assume that quantum systems can generate themselves that it is to posit the existence of a really not so simple omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being. The cosmologists and physicists who have made this a truly remarkable time in our understanding of the universe will, thankfully, simply continue to ignore medieval metaphysical bullshit.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74114820685388761862012-05-02T08:34:45.926-04:002012-05-02T08:34:45.926-04:00My purpose, RickK, is not to convince you that Aqu...My purpose, RickK, is not to convince you that Aquinas' proofs are valid. To understand that, you must engage them, which is not an easy task. <br /><br />My purpose is to show that you and other atheists don't understand the argument. I've shown that.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25804622127254444262012-05-02T08:21:40.847-04:002012-05-02T08:21:40.847-04:00Dasdot,
Seems like you missed the whole plot, actu...Dasdot,<br />Seems like you missed the whole plot, actually. More Soma?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64350137943151886652012-05-02T08:19:21.394-04:002012-05-02T08:19:21.394-04:00RickK,
Feser is quite good, actually. If you like ...RickK,<br />Feser is quite good, actually. If you like philosophy and enjoy polemic style, he is a good read. An excellent introduction/primer to Aquinas and Aristotle. No one is preening. <br />Your comment regarding faith is unfounded and, frankly, uneducated. You have no idea how the Doctor has drawn his conclusions or came to make that 'leap', as you describe his belief in God. <br />Further, your (incorrect) note about the validity of scholastic argument is easily applicable to your own beliefs and certitudes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85831479127996455092012-05-02T07:46:20.237-04:002012-05-02T07:46:20.237-04:00Anon is not alone anymore!
(see above)Anon is not alone anymore!<br />(see above)Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74042874581008926122012-05-01T22:24:50.512-04:002012-05-01T22:24:50.512-04:00"Only God has all of these attributes. "..."Only God has all of these attributes. "<br /><br />Or God's father. Or his father. Or a mindless eternal energy field that periodically spins off universes. Or Aquinas tells us as much about the origin of the universe as Aristotle tells us about quantum mechanics.<br /><br />These arguments only work if you start with belief, so that when the time comes to jump from "an eternal something" to "the God of the Israelites", you have the faith with which to leap.<br /><br />Egnor praising Feser praising Aquinas - it's just courtiers preening over the emperor's invisible clothes.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83916974546905598622012-05-01T17:12:31.747-04:002012-05-01T17:12:31.747-04:00It also appears that you are missing more than tha...It also appears that you are missing more than that! Sorry.Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66037639962731155772012-05-01T16:43:58.829-04:002012-05-01T16:43:58.829-04:00Seems this anon has embraced Philistinism!
To quo...Seems this anon has embraced <a href="http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism" rel="nofollow">Philistinism</a>!<br /><br />To quote: <i>The New Atheist writers are supremely self-confident in their ability to dispatch opponents with a sarcastic quip or two. And they show no evidence whatsoever of knowing what they are talking about.</i>Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73028045140270614702012-05-01T16:22:08.905-04:002012-05-01T16:22:08.905-04:00@anon:
You don't understand the arguments you...@anon:<br /><br />You don't understand the arguments you claim to refute. The eternity/non-eternity of the universe has no bearing on the cosmological argument, at least not on the classical argument developed by Aquinas and Aristotle. <br /><br />They both assumed an eternal universe.They pointed out that even an eternally existing thing does not necessarily contain the cause for its own existence. Aquinas showed rigorously that the only thing that can be the cause of its own existence is an entity in which essence (what it is) and existence (that it is) are identical.He also showed that it must be simple (without parts) and pure actually, without potentiality. The universe meets none of these criteria-- therefore it must have a cause prior to itself, even if it is eternal. <br /><br />Only God has all of these attributes. <br /><br />You need to understand the argument before you embarass yourself trying to refute it. Feser's Aquinas or Last Superstition are good places to start.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17391139275232348972012-05-01T14:12:22.990-04:002012-05-01T14:12:22.990-04:00Feser's whining doesn't save his argument ...Feser's whining doesn't save his argument because "everything that begins to exist has a cause" doesn't actually do the heavy lifting he thinks it does. The only thing we can say about the universe is that it began to exist <i>in its present form</i> at some point in the past. Prior to the Planck time we have no information, and no information can be passed forward from before the event known as the Big Bang. So did the universe exist before the Big Bang? Maybe. We don't know. Hence there is no way to know if the universe "began to exist".<br /><br />Not only that, "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an assumption that is not demonstrated. Nothing actually really begins to exist: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, but merely change form. Hence, Feser's basic claim is junk, like the rest of Aquinas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28822494982909978122012-05-01T07:06:17.148-04:002012-05-01T07:06:17.148-04:00When debating about Christ the historical knowledg...When debating about Christ the historical knowledge of the New Atheists is even more abysmal.Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55257863569764472962012-05-01T06:55:36.498-04:002012-05-01T06:55:36.498-04:00Nice story, but it appears I missed the part where...Nice story, but it appears I missed the part where your proved god.dashdothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301869898820271447noreply@blogger.com