Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If my knowledge about Aristotle depended only on Hcap's opinion of him...I would have thought that the ancient sage was a FOOL. One has to wonder how he remains important to this day.

He is only unimportant to fools. The rest of us know better.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Some religious folk have adapted Aristotle theory of "unmoved mover" as an explanation for god. Aristotle's primary cause, or first uncaused cause of everything in the universe.

What Actor and I have been pointing out is this leads to an inherent infinite regress. The God created everything, then who, or what created god conundrum? Why not the universe is and always was, and leave it at that?

I much prefer Socrates and Pythagoras. What do you like about Aristotle?

Why are you so dense? How can an eternal being have a cause, since he never came into existence!?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You were the one reacting to my larger objection to you and boxcar advancing Aristotle's metaphysics as a counter to the causal chain proposed by Ben Franklyn's "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost".
Sorry, that does not support in any way boxcar's contention the cause must be greater than it's effect. Your attempt to turn Ben' thought expeeriment on it's head, continued this rather silly propping up of your interpretation of Aristotle...
Will you please cut the verbiage, and get to your point.
As I recently told boxcar causal chains where minor forces (causes) lead to massive effects is more simply illustrated by a snow avalanche. Also now that I think of it nuclear fission.

I only listed Aristotle's failures to cast doubt on his thinking as to his archaic "four causes" in you guys use in Ben's for want of a nail example.
Geocentricism was one. You latched onto geocentricism and turned it into a limited perspective of Greek philosophical thinking, claiming it was excusable since Aristotle's misconception of the solar system was NOT "counter-intuitive" for the Greeks at that time.

The original argument made by boxcar was evolution violated some sort of metaphysical principle. Are you agreeing with any of that?

Mr. Simple-minded: A causal series has cumulative forces. You cannot say, for example, that the 1 oz. piece of paper alone caused the see saw to totter. All the secondary (or "instrumental") forces together acted with that 1 oz. piece of paper to cause the see saw to totter.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Whenever some can't argue intelligently those some do this.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Whenever some can't argue intelligently those some do this.

Simple-Minded is as Simple-Minded does whenever the simple-minded cannot refute the content of an opposing argument.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

You were the one reacting to my larger objection to you and boxcar advancing Aristotle's metaphysics as a counter to the causal chain proposed by Ben Franklyn's "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost".
Sorry, that does not support in any way boxcar's contention the cause must be greater than it's effect. Your attempt to turn Ben' thought expeeriment on it's head, continued this rather silly propping up of your interpretation of Aristotle...
Will you please cut the verbiage, and get to your point.
As I recently told boxcar causal chains where minor forces (causes) lead to massive effects is more simply illustrated by a snow avalanche. Also now that I think of it nuclear fission.

I only listed Aristotle's failures to cast doubt on his thinking as to his archaic "four causes" in you guys use in Ben's for want of a nail example.
Geocentricism was one. You latched onto geocentricism and turned it into a limited perspective of Greek philosophical thinking, claiming it was excusable since Aristotle's misconception of the solar system was NOT "counter-intuitive" for the Greeks at that time.

The original argument made by boxcar was evolution violated some sort of metaphysical principle. Are you agreeing with any of that?

"You were the one reacting to my larger objection"...I didn't react to anything. I named the principle when you asked him for it, and explained it when you further asked for that.

"Will you please cut the verbiage, and get to your point"...I got to the point, but the point involves more than efficient causation and thus merely "verbiage" to such as yourself.

"I only listed Aristotle's failures to cast doubt on his thinking"... I'll go with two simpletons, Hawking and Heisenberg et.al., who praised/cited Aristotle as previously mentioned.

"The original argument made by boxcar was evolution violated some sort of metaphysical principle. Are you agreeing with any of that?...No.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Early moderns and later moderns try to focus on the subset of the phenomena being investigated. The "mind and the intent of the agent" is not in question as part of the much larger causal chain, but not this subset.

And beside the point.

And as I just said, there are casual chains, like an avalanche and a nuclear fission chain reaction that are without mind.

Further contrary to boxcar's proclamation that causes must be greater than their effects. In Bern's cautionary tale "for want of the nail", neither were there secondary causes.
If a British soldier shot the rider or horse, that would be secondary.

One too many snowflakes triggering an avalanche, or one neutron initiating nuclear fission, require no "secondary causes".

"The 'mind and the intent of the agent' is not in question as part of the much larger causal chain, but not this subset...It's a "per se" causal series in Scholastic lingo, meaning the instrumental causes do not have intrinsic power to cause, but rely on an external source. The nail cannot affix the shoe on its own. But yes, the nail could be faulty, the horse come up lame, the rider fall off, the Colonials turn coward, etc. When that happens it is incidental to the intrinsic capacity of the effects to respectively cause the "desired" effect of preserving the kingdom. Sure sounds like Ben proposed something goal-oriented in nature, doesn't it?

The point of an effect being wholly in its cause in some way (formally, or virtually, or eminently) is that if not, then some potential in the effect would have become actually realized, without an explanatory cause.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Some religious folk have adapted Aristotle theory of "unmoved mover" as an explanation for god. Aristotle's primary cause, or first uncaused cause of everything in the universe.

What Actor and I have been pointing out is this leads to an inherent infinite regress. The God created everything, then who, or what created god conundrum? Why not the universe is and always was, and leave it at that?

I much prefer Socrates and Pythagoras. What do you like about Aristotle?

"What Actor and I have been pointing out is this leads to an inherent infinite regress. The God created everything, then who, or what created god conundrum? Why not the universe is and always was, and leave it at that"?

One might disagree with Aristotelian premises, but in light of those premises, "What caused God"? misses the point.

Per Aristotle, as matter the universe necessarily changes, is composed of parts and is contingent. That requires a necessary, simple (vs. composition), unchanging changer to terminate the chain, i.e., provide intelligibility/explanation vs. brute fact.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"The 'mind and the intent of the agent' is not in question as part of the much larger causal chain, but not this subset...It's a "per se" causal series in Scholastic lingo, meaning the instrumental causes do not have intrinsic power to cause, but rely on an external source. The nail cannot affix the shoe on its own. But yes, the nail could be faulty, the horse come up lame, the rider fall off, the Colonials turn coward, etc. When that happens it is incidental to the intrinsic capacity of the effects to respectively cause the "desired" effect of preserving the kingdom. Sure sounds like Ben proposed something goal-oriented in nature, doesn't it?

The point of an effect being wholly in its cause in some way (formally, or virtually, or eminently) is that if not, then some potential in the effect would have become actually realized, without an explanatory cause.

"meaning the instrumental causes do not have intrinsic power to cause, but rely on an external source."

Please define your terms. I do not speak fluent Aristotlean.

1)- instrumental causes?
2)- intrinsic power to cause?

Nor do I speak "Scholastic lingo"

3)-"per se" causal series?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"What Actor and I have been pointing out is this leads to an inherent infinite regress. The God created everything, then who, or what created god conundrum? Why not the universe is and always was, and leave it at that"?

One might disagree with Aristotelian premises, but in light of those premises, "What caused God"? misses the point.

Per Aristotle, as matter the universe necessarily changes, is composed of parts and is contingent. That requires a necessary, simple (vs. composition), unchanging changer to terminate the chain, i.e., provide intelligibility/explanation vs. brute fact.

Are you saying Aristotle/Aquinas thinking does not use the concept of a "unmopved mover" or prime cause to attempt to establish a deity outside of the universe?

No, it does not necessarily require "unchanging changer to terminate the chain". You are falling into the boxcarian trap of defining concepts in terms you like, and holding up those definitions as support and proof of those concepts.

What is " simple vs. composition?

Thank you very much, but none of your verbiage provide "intelligibility and or an explanation". You seem to be ignoring "brute fact" in favor of "brutal convoluted metaphysics"

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Per Aristotle, as matter the universe necessarily changes, is composed of parts and is contingent. That requires a necessary, simple (vs. composition), unchanging changer to terminate the chain, i.e., provide intelligibility/explanation vs. brute fact.

Just to let you know, within the universe, FRICTION often is what terminates the chain.
Does friction exist outside? Is friction a divine power or property? And ultimately friction results in an increase in entropy.

An important concept in physical systems is that of order and disorder (also known as randomness). The more energy that is lost by a system to its surroundings, the less ordered and more random the system is. Scientists refer to the measure of randomness or disorder within a system as entropy.

Does god obey the second law of thermodynamics, or does the law obey god?

[Actor]

https://www.cleveland.com/court-just...abled-son.html

CLEVELAND, Ohio — A Geauga County couple has settled a lawsuit they filed over what they said was the forced baptism of their disabled son while he was with his Big Brother mentor in 2016.

April and Gregg DeFibaugh of Hambden Township reached a settlement earlier this year with Morning Star Friends Church in Chardon, Pastor Matt Chesnes, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northeast Ohio and former volunteer David Guarnera. It and was announced Thursday by the group American Atheists, which represented them. A Geauga County Probate Court judge approved the settlement last week, according to court records.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement. American Atheists previously said the couple was non-religious but did not identify as Atheists.

The couple said Guarnera took their son, then 11, to a group baptism without their knowledge. Chesnes and Guarnera, who is a member of the church, conducted the baptism, plunging the boy’s head underwater, according to court filings.

The men “held his head underwater to the point where (he) felt like he was choking and could not breathe” and the event left him emotionally scarred, according to the original lawsuit.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

One might disagree with Aristotelian premises,

What are those premises?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... but in light of those premises, "What caused God"? misses the point.

How?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Per Aristotle, as matter the universe necessarily changes, is composed of parts and is contingent.

Define contingent.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

That requires a necessary, simple (vs. composition), unchanging changer to terminate the chain, ...

Why must the chain be terminated? Because of infinite regress? Is there some problem with infinity other than we don't experience it in our everyday lives and it's therefore hard to comprehend. That does not prevent the true believers from believing it is possible for their lifespan to extent to infinity.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... i.e., provide intelligibility/explanation vs. brute fact.

That's what science does. It just takes time.

[boxcar]

[quote=Actor;2611397]

How?

"How", you ask? Okay...Explain how any entity that has never come into existence (having, therefore, no beginning) have a cause.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"How", you ask? Okay...Explain how any entity that has never come into existence (having, therefore, no beginning) have a cause.

No, you explain how any entity that has never come into existence could possibly exist.