Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I have only "confessed" that unfortunately you are losing it,
and way beyond reason."Conceiving" of you as lying is also not imaginative.
It has been"revealed" to many of us you are way past having a honest debate.

"Imagine" that bunky

I am ignoring you for a while. Flail away without me


BTW, you lost, it's about "TIME" you puit a cork in it and shut up already

No, you have implicitly confessed that all thoughts and ideas are mere fantasies vain imaginations -- not be entertained by serious, non-thinking, irrational adults like yourself.

You have also confessed that you have never held a goal or an an end or a purpose in mind before realizing or implementing same in the physical world. With such an implicit confession, you have made all village idiots in this world look smart next to you.

And with my last question to you about whether you have ever lied or not, I'm not surprised you want to duck out without any further dialogue. Admittedly, it is one of those pernicious Catch-22 type questions whereby no matter how you answer, you lose.

Feel free to pick up your marbles and run home to mama. This is what girly men do, anyhow. You're so boringly predictable.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Can you back this up?
Quote Prof Fesser. I can not find this online.

Hcap, you won't find anything by searching "Fesser" due to the fact that it's "Feser"...pronounced Fay/sir. I realize you were just quoting.

I'll share a blogpost...

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/201...n-present.html

...that contains a relevant discussion. Especially in para. 6, 7, and 8, where Augustine is quoted a second time, Feser illustrates that we have a sense of the past, present and future in order to coherently maintain a sense of self over time, while also maintaining explanatory power for our equilibrium. The key paragraph contains the principle of proportionate causality, by which "Effects 'point' backwards, toward their efficient causes. These principles are, to use Hume’s language (though not his principles), the 'cement of the universe' that keeps things and events from being 'loose and separate'.” Boxcar doesn't mention "finality" whereby "efficient causes point forward to their effects", as we commonly experience.

In other words, when one retains the idea of final causes (rejected by moderns because...teleology. I can find no reason(s) other than philosophical ones), the effect of the oak tree points back to the efficient cause as the acorn (while the oak tree is the final cause of the acorn--what it was directed towards. In no way is this claiming a backwards time flow, nor time travel which Feser flatly denies elsewhere).

If your interested, I think the mostly intelligent and diverse commentators on the blog, many of whom are both supporters or challengers to the arguments presented there and the many other topics, discuss Buddhism in light of retaining the sense of the past and future, for reasons mentioned above.

I'm weaning myself off reflexively checking out the debates on occasion, and 1,100 posts is a nice round number.

Peace to all.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Hcap, you won't find anything by searching "Fesser" due to the fact that it's "Feser"...pronounced Fay/sir. I realize you were just quoting.

I'll share a blogpost...

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/201...n-present.html

...that contains a relevant discussion. Especially in para. 6, 7, and 8, where Augustine is quoted a second time, Feser illustrates that we have a sense of the past, present and future in order to coherently maintain a sense of self over time, while also maintaining explanatory power for our equilibrium. The key paragraph contains the principle of proportionate causality, by which "Effects 'point' backwards, toward their efficient causes. These principles are, to use Hume’s language (though not his principles), the 'cement of the universe' that keeps things and events from being 'loose and separate'.” Boxcar doesn't mention "finality" whereby "efficient causes point forward to their effects", as we commonly experience.

In other words, when one retains the idea of final causes (rejected by moderns because...teleology. I can find no reason(s) other than philosophical ones), the effect of the oak tree points back to the efficient cause as the acorn (while the oak tree is the final cause of the acorn--what it was directed towards. In no way is this claiming a backwards time flow, nor time travel which Feser flatly denies elsewhere).

If your interested, I think the mostly intelligent and diverse commentators on the blog, many of whom are both supporters or challengers to the arguments presented there and the many other topics, discuss Buddhism in light of retaining the sense of the past and future, for reasons mentioned above.

I'm weaning myself off reflexively checking out the debates on occasion, and 1,100 posts is a nice round number.

Peace to all.

I appreciate your attempt to clear this up. However nowhere does Prof Feser say anything close to...

Originally Posted by boxcar

P.S. It just occurred to me that since you're read Feser's "The Last Superstition", you must know that he firmly believed that effects often occur in intellect prior to causes. You do agree with him, yes?

Is there anything in "The Last Superstition", that does?
BTW, the process of memorizing is initially done in the present,of that event and recalled after that past memory of that event was established. I fail to see how even as a purely mental activity, the physical manifestation of the direction of time can be reversed

From your article....

Originally Posted by Augustine

For the mind expects and attends and remembers, so that what it expects passes through what has its attention to what it remembers…

Feser points out.

. As Aquinas argued, if efficient causes were not “pointed” or “directed toward” their characteristic effects, there would be no way to explain why those effects are in fact the ones which characteristically follow. Things really would objectively be “loose and separate.” (As usual, see Scholastic Metaphysics for detailed defense of all this Scholastic metaphysics.)

Apparently, Aquinas specifically says effects follow efficient cause

Let me repeat what you just said...

"The key paragraph contains the principle of proportionate causality, by which "Effects 'point' backwards, toward their efficient causes."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Let me repeat what you just said...

"The key paragraph contains the principle of proportionate causality, by which "Effects 'point' backwards, toward their efficient causes."

In the [/b]physical world[/b], which I have never denied. But in the mind -- in intellect -- effects (final causes) must actually precede the other three causes, including efficient cause. Only after a desired end is conceived in the mind, does a person start thinking "back" to the other three causes -- and then only after he decides to pursue the final cause held in mind in the physical realm.

Another example: An architect wants to build his dream house. In his mind's eye he can clearly see his dream home. He sees vaulted ceilings, a step-down living room, wood paneled office/library, island kitchen, tile floors, sunken bathtubs, etc., etc. Only when he decides to realize or implement his plan for his dream does he take the mental image of his design to the next stage, which is to the drafting table to apply pencil and paper to his idea. And then finally, when he actually wants to physically build his home in earnest in this physical world, he will necessarily concern himself with the other three causes because in the physical realm these three always precede the Final Cause.

This is the way humans work in the real world. This is the way life works. To deny this is to deny reality.

[hcap]

Doc, I also asked about this in post #10308.

I know Aquinas did not limit potential and actualization to the temporal, however all manifestations of "potential" including mental activity occur forward in time.

Before arrives before after. Cause then effect.

The usual example of an acorn potentially becoming a tree, although does not specifically giver the time direction, it is a priori.

Its actualization is from the simpler to the more complex.
Show us any "acorn" to tree event separate from time.

I admit i am more attuned to modern science, and the Aristotle, Aquinas Feser wing of philosophy does not explain enough for me, but why try to separate the temporal from "efficient cause and its effects"?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In the [/b]physical world[/b], which I have never denied. But in the mind -- in intellect -- effects (final causes) must actually precede the other three causes, including efficient cause. Only after a desired end is conceived in the mind, does a person start thinking "back" to the other three causes -- and then only after he decides to pursue the final cause held in mind in the physical realm.

Another example: An architect wants to build his dream house. In his mind's eye he can clearly see his dream home. He sees vaulted ceilings, a step-down living room, wood paneled office/library, island kitchen, tile floors, sunken bathtubs, etc., etc. Only when he decides to realize or implement his plan for his dream does he take the mental image of his design to the next stage, which is to the drafting table to apply pencil and paper to his idea. And then finally, when he actually wants to physically build his home in earnest in this physical world, he will necessarily concern himself with the other three causes because in the physical realm these three always precede the Final Cause.

This is the way humans work in the real world. This is the way life works. To deny this is to deny reality.

We have had this out enough.

Maybe Doc can explain things, although he apparently is not in agreement with you

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

We have had this out enough.

Maybe Doc can explain things, although he apparently is not in agreement with you

Maybe Doc can also explain to you that effects and causes can occur simultaneously in the physical world, too. Feser says quite a bit about this in his book. Just sayin'....

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Maybe Doc can also explain to you that effects and causes can occur simultaneously in the physical world, too. Feser says quite a bit about this in his book. Just sayin'....

Looks like Hcap has run out of time. I wonder if that happened Yesterday before Tomorrow arrived to become Today?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Looks like Hcap has run out of time. I wonder if that happened Yesterday before Tomorrow arrived to become Today?

I'll just fire up the DeLorean and my trusty flux capacitor Emmett

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

Maybe Doc can explain things, ...

I think I've asked this before. Who is Doc?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

I think I've asked this before. Who is Doc?

dnlgfnk. He is not a fundamentalist but is an Aristotle, Aquinas, Feser supporter.

I suspect he understands them better than box.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Remind me again....how many people were direct eyewitnesses to the Big Bang?

How many people were direct eyewitnesses to the creation in Genesis. If you can't answer that (and you have not, so far) then you are indulging in the fallacy of Special Pleading, i.e., expecting that the rules you apply to others should not apply to you.

So, how about it? Who "directly observed" Genesis?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

How many people were direct eyewitnesses to the creation in Genesis. If you can't answer that (and you have not, so far) then you are indulging in the fallacy of Special Pleading, i.e., expecting that the rules you apply to others should not apply to you.

So, how about it? Who "directly observed" Genesis?

I assume you told boxcar about The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR)?

Box, it is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe in Big Bang cosmology. Almost as reliable as witnessing it, considering the speed of light

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How many people were direct eyewitnesses to the creation in Genesis. If you can't answer that (and you have not, so far) then you are indulging in the fallacy of Special Pleading, i.e., expecting that the rules you apply to others should not apply to you.

So, how about it? Who "directly observed" Genesis?

Doesn't matter, since theistic creationism does not violate any laws of logic. So, that puts Supernaturalism a gazillion light years ahead of Atheistic Naturalism (any version!) coming right out of the chute.

Have a nice night.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I assume you told boxcar about The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR)?

Box, it is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe in Big Bang cosmology. Almost as reliable as witnessing it, considering the speed of light

Haven't you received the memo: Almost only counts in death, horseshoes and hand grenades?