tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2933437918268735197..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The latest on Five ProofsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger205125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19311530673263770172019-03-05T10:25:35.580-08:002019-03-05T10:25:35.580-08:00Red,
"And also the kind of unpalatable rando...Red,<br /><br />"And also the kind of unpalatable randomness is one in which something happens to something without a reason."<br /><br />I'm not talking about unpalatable randomness, but just randomness--lack of reason for something happening. The A-reasons and B-reasons don't tell me why A was chosen rather than B, since those reasons were consistent with each outcome. The reasons only explain the range the range of outcomes; they don't explain why the particular outcome is the one that actualized. So what you have is determinism mixed with randomness. The reasons determine the range, and the outcome is decided randomly with respect to those reasons.<br /><br />Saying "the agent caused it" or he "has control" doesn't answer anything, since being the agent-cause or having control is compatible with both outcomes. It's like saying a die roll isn't random just because it was thrown. It only explains why it landed on a number, but not why it landed on 3. The agent has no idea what his act of will will be until it's too late, and he has no antecendent control over it. He's just walking into the choice. So the god of free will theism punishes spinning coins for landing on the wrong side. <br /><br />" that moral responsibility requires that sort of contrastive explanation is precisely what libertatians reject."<br /><br />The libertarian view is the very thing in question. You don't defeat an argument by pointing out that people disagree. On libertarianism, the agent doesn't know what his choice will be until it's already locked in. So there's no responsibility there. If he does know what his choice will be, then he can't do otherwise without falsifying his foreknowledge, in which case he didn't have foreknowledge to begin with, contrary to hypothesis. So there's no robust responsibility there either. Hence, the impossibility of moral responsibility.<br /><br />" in order to prove such inconsistency you need to observer particular evils obviously if there is no evil there is no problem, to asses some state of affairs as evil you need to judge them as morally bad, but to do that there must be some moral properties and hence moral realism involved. "<br /><br />I only need to observe facts that would be considered evil on a theistic worldview. To hold that "God exists" and "Evil exists" are contraries does not commit one to holding that either is true.<br /><br />"But that precisely is moral language"<br /><br />It isn't. Suffering is not a moral term. Love is not a moral term; it just means concern for the happiness of others.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57023575400041093332018-02-23T21:23:12.633-08:002018-02-23T21:23:12.633-08:00Can someone help me with the correct way to explai...Can someone help me with the correct way to explain a concept from the 5 Proofs? <br /><br />I was discussing the Aristotelian proof with a friend the other day. After discussing how the earth holds up everything else, he said "the earth does not hold itself up, it is in space." Truthfully, I did not know how to argue this point back. I know Dr. Feser would not include an example that cannot be defended well, so I am looking for someone to explain to me how to respond to this objection raised by my friend. gdyess10noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72530228544460930152018-02-22T08:42:20.320-08:002018-02-22T08:42:20.320-08:00Great! More comedy material by Carrier. Should be ...Great! More comedy material by Carrier. Should be a fun read :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36634022610827479422018-02-22T08:32:30.782-08:002018-02-22T08:32:30.782-08:00Richard Carrier has posted "Feser’s Five Proo...Richard Carrier has posted "Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God: Debunked!" at <br />https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752<br /><br />Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73733140332573737562018-02-19T12:57:58.000-08:002018-02-19T12:57:58.000-08:00I think it's a general thesis of Aquinas' ...I think it's a general thesis of Aquinas' metaphysics that <i>nothing</i> does, in the following sense: evils are never the relata of per se causal relations; they are only caused per accidens. Relatedly, in the sense in which they exist, they do not need to be sustained by God in order to exist.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43950392348271568442018-02-19T12:37:26.242-08:002018-02-19T12:37:26.242-08:00I read what you cited. What do you think sustains ...I read what you cited. What do you think sustains unnatural acts in existence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83279775392886711102018-02-19T12:14:28.015-08:002018-02-19T12:14:28.015-08:00Aquinas is speaking of the evil will, which he thi...<i>Aquinas is speaking of the evil will, which he thinks is a negation, not a substance.</i><br /><br />I don't know how you got this from the text, unless you mistakenly read a. 3 and not a. 2.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24833321036396585182018-02-19T02:33:51.067-08:002018-02-19T02:33:51.067-08:00"Maybe after that class I'll come back to... "Maybe after that class I'll come back to this comments section and slaughter libertarians more than I already have."<br /><br />Hopefully Ed will have reinstated his ban of logorrheic trolls by then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6179985884123107552018-02-19T00:45:00.429-08:002018-02-19T00:45:00.429-08:00'Later this year, I'll be taking a class o...'Later this year, I'll be taking a class on free will taught by Richard Carrier.'<br /><br />Can't you find a class on free will by philosophers? Or is Carrier's class more convenient? Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45279053870508773062018-02-19T00:32:32.307-08:002018-02-19T00:32:32.307-08:00""The argument doesn't depend on the...""The argument doesn't depend on the principle of sufficient reason. It merely says that IF there is a reason why an event, AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE, occurs, that reason is incompatible with the event failing to occur."<br /><br />Ok. Basically describing what it is for an explanation to entail the explanation. Gotcha gotcha. <br /><br />"The libertarian says that there is a reason why an agent chose A rather than B" <br /><br />Aaaand straw man. <br /><br />I hope you don't expect me to run around addressing the whole theory of agent causation (when I manifestly mentioned I haven't the time for that). <br /><br />A few points <br /><br />• you actually appealed to the everyday dictionary for the definition of word (with multiple technical terms)?!<br /><br />• seeing as you have forgotten, my interest is in arguing that you are wrong on 2 accounts; that explanans entail the explanandum and that explanations must be contrastive. The rest of the pixels you have used aren't my focus (maybe interesting, maybe not). You seem to have given up defending the first point and instead appealed to quotations which assume it (in this context, that's assuming what is under discussion, I.e question begging). <br /><br />With the contrastive issue, you note "Saying I'm begging the question and repeating it a thousand times will never make it true. Deal with my arguments and stop being a parrot." <br /><br />So what is your argument? <br /><br />"The outcome is contrastive (A was chosen rather than B), so if your explanation doesn't explain the contrast, then there's randomness involved."<br /><br />This calls for a gif of disbelief. I haven't the words. "The outcome is contrastive"? I have already noted that a contingent proposition P can always add &~q. You are simply insisting that I explain P&~q rather than P. But an explanation doesn't have to be contrastive in order to be an explanation. See my above comment on the matter. <br /><br />"It's easy to say that someone else's objections have no muster." <br /><br />I know exactly how you feel. DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1875886127238604542018-02-18T21:16:40.032-08:002018-02-18T21:16:40.032-08:00Aquinas is speaking of the evil will, which he thi...Aquinas is speaking of the evil will, which he thinks is a negation, not a substance. Human males having sex with each other is something God would have to sustain, yet He can't because its evil. So something is wrong with your theologyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49770353762296637352018-02-18T21:12:29.750-08:002018-02-18T21:12:29.750-08:00At I q. 49 a. 2 ad 2, which you allege to have rea...At I q. 49 a. 2 ad 2, which you allege to have read, he says:<br /><br /><i>The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.</i><br /><br />So it would seem that Aquinas rather says that there is something God does not sustain, namely evil acts insofar as they are evil.<br /><br />Maybe you still thin that's incompatible with holiness. But I don't. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51710586899488491512018-02-18T21:07:42.692-08:002018-02-18T21:07:42.692-08:00"Has anyone ever told you that you're a r..."Has anyone ever told you that you're a really bad sport?"<br /><br />I guess it's in my nature. At least I'm not burning "heretics" on the stake, as your Church did.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45398906679414539592018-02-18T20:51:30.347-08:002018-02-18T20:51:30.347-08:00In the Summa he says that God sustains everything,...In the Summa he says that God sustains everything, since He along is not contingent. Now, homosexual acts are contingent, yet he sustains them as they happen, which a holy God couldn't do. You could say that demons sustain unnatural acts, but that would stray far from Aquinas's metaphysicsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43675169134127502732018-02-18T20:20:09.385-08:002018-02-18T20:20:09.385-08:00Does your God, according to Aquinas, actualize and...<i>Does your God, according to Aquinas, actualize and sustain it. Yes.</i><br /><br />Where does he say this?Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18771202579312685222018-02-18T20:10:45.467-08:002018-02-18T20:10:45.467-08:00They're not bad arguments, even if I'm a b...<i>They're not bad arguments, even if I'm a bad defender of them. Later this year, I'll be taking a class on free will taught by Richard Carrier. Maybe after that class I'll come back to this comments section and slaughter libertarians more than I already have.</i><br /><br />Has anyone ever told you that you're a really bad sport?Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82551610257378930602018-02-18T19:52:47.607-08:002018-02-18T19:52:47.607-08:00I looked at what you linked, and I have read that ...I looked at what you linked, and I have read that before. It does nothing to my argument. Is ejaculating in a baby goat unnatural? Yes. Does your God, according to Aquinas, actualize and sustain it. Yes. So that God doesn't exist. I read a book from Tan books on homosexuality, and it quoted a saint saying that even the demons leave the room when homosexual acts happen. Not your God? He is all in there, sustaining/actualizing everything blow by blow. You have to face up to this fact and stop believing whatever Aquinas tells you to think Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65610664006517316742018-02-18T19:35:23.733-08:002018-02-18T19:35:23.733-08:00"It is just that he feels he must insist on b..."It is just that he feels he must insist on bad arguments for existential reasons."<br /><br />They're not bad arguments, even if I'm a bad defender of them. Later this year, I'll be taking a class on free will taught by Richard Carrier. Maybe after that class I'll come back to this comments section and slaughter libertarians more than I already have.<br /><br />Callum: "It helps [him] to reject free will."<br /><br />Agreed. The Catholic Church destroyed my psychologically, to the point where all I would do is lie in bed in fear of Hell, and I would go to Confession multiple times a week, always afraid that I would die before I made it there. Determinism saved my life. I was on the verge of suicide. It's almost certain there are Catholics (and other theists) out there in the same position I was in, and it is out of love that I will spend the rest of my life attacking Catholicism and Orthodoxy. This nonsense--this child abuse--needs to end.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6446601995393446092018-02-18T19:26:37.613-08:002018-02-18T19:26:37.613-08:00Agent causation amounts to saying "the agent ...Agent causation amounts to saying "the agent cause A because he chose A," which is circular. If he's not sufficiently inclined to follow one desire-set over another, then he's just acting randomly. Putting the coin toss in the mind doesn't make the mind morally responsible for it, since he still determine whether the outcome was heads or tails. Without a higher-order reason to go with one reason-set over another, the outcome is random, even if A is circumscribed by reasons. (B also had its reasons.) <br /><br />"It has been shown you are begging the question" Saying I'm begging the question and repeating it a thousand times will never make it true. Deal with my arguments and stop being a parrot.<br /><br />"and explanations do not have to be contrastive." The outcome is contrastive (A was chosen rather than B), so if your explanation doesn't explain the contrast, then there's randomness involved.<br /><br />"Your objections have no muster" It's easy to say that someone else's objections have no muster. It's harder to actually demonstrate it.<br /><br />There is no free will. This is very exciting, since it will destroy the Roman Catholic Church that has kept humanity down for far too long. We're too old for the nonsense of free will, sexual morality, retributive justice, Edward Feser's neurotic obsession with the death penalty, Catholic apologists acting like Aquinas is infallible, using old arguments and arrogantly acting like they haven't been refuted, & psychologically torturing people with the doctrine of Hell (which is child abuse). This needs to stop. Even though I completely disagree with Martin Luther's theology, I admire him for taking the stand and setting humanity on its road to freedom from the oppressive Roman Empire, which never truly died but morphed into papism.<br /><br />We've been in the dark too long.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24952915225231244252018-02-18T19:25:04.568-08:002018-02-18T19:25:04.568-08:00I am not assuming that explanandums entail the exp...I am not assuming that explanandums entail the explanation, as I already pointed out to Callum. You can keep repeating that as much as you want, but it's not true. The explanation, after all, can include an element of chance, like in quantum mechanics (the mythological version) or a die roll.<br /><br />Franz Kiekeben: "The argument doesn't depend on the principle of sufficient reason. It merely says that IF there is a reason why an event, AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE, occurs, that reason is incompatible with the event failing to occur.<br /><br />The libertarian says that there is a reason why an agent chose A rather than B, and yet that even with that reason in place, the agent could have chosen B. But in that case, the choice between A and B remains unexplained."<br /><br />Now in your case, you might say there is no reason why an agent chose A over B, but then how that any different from random chance? A could happen, B could happen; the agent's character doesn't determine which one, so how the heck could you hold him accountable. If the agent is not acting for a reason, but merely landing on a set of reasons, that's exactly what random behaviour is. As pointed out by another determinist: "If you are to have responsibility for your actions, then there must be reasons for taking a given action."<br /><br />"randommess" That the outcome is unpredictable, and that all things being equal, A or B (C, etc.) could occur. Chance. From dictionary.com: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"<br /><br />If I throw a die, you could say that the outcome (e.g. 4) is sufficiently explained by my throw of the die, the number of sides, the shape, and the presence of 4. That doesn't change the fact that is random chance. In a "free" choice, the outcome can be linked with one desire, but there is nothing guiding the will (no fixed higher-inclination) to land on one rather the other. It's basically a die roll in the brain, but you label it "agent causation" to obscure the element of chance. The presence of the desire-set doesn't explain why it magically took priority over another one. Let's say B is chosen rather than A. The "reasons" for A are still there. So reasons don't show that their respective outcome will occur. Why did the reasons for A bring about A in one world, but not in another world? There is an element of chance involved, unless something brings it about that the reasons for A are more persuasive than B, which takes us back to determinism.<br /><br />So free will is indistinguishable from random will. How could one be responsible for a "free choice" if they have no control over what it will be? Having control means you get to determine what the outcome will be (for example: wanting to follow one desire and not the other), but on indeterminism, nothing guarantees that the outcome will be one rather the other. You have no control. Despite all prior effort and deliberation, your choice could end up being B rather than A. How could be responsible when you didn't want to act on this desire over another one, but it just happened on a whim? The whole point of free will is to make men morally responsible, but the agent and his choice will just be up to luck.<br /><br />Also, given free will, if one has even the slightest inkling of a desire to rape someone, that means they might do it, even the odds are unlikely (the side of the die is less weighty, to use an analogy). I don't see why this free will is even desirable. I want my desire to not-harm others to always outweigh any sadistic thought that could pop in my stream of thoughts. That can only be the case on determinism. Randomness ruins things. You could never trust anyone, since there prior personality up a point doesn't determine what their future behaviour will be like, but only makes some sides of the die a lot more weighty.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45211733356882524412018-02-18T18:51:32.522-08:002018-02-18T18:51:32.522-08:00Well, sorry, but it is true (cf. ad 5).
Aquinas&#...Well, sorry, but it is true (cf. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm#article2" rel="nofollow">ad 5</a>).<br /><br />Aquinas' reply to the suggestion that God concurs in adultery is that God concurs in what is natural in it and not in what is not. If the reply works for adultery, then it's going to work for your examples too, because he doesn't think there is any sin in which <i>nothing</i> is natural, and there is going to be something perverse about each of adultery, bestiality, child rape, and homosexual activity (cf. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2075.htm#article2" rel="nofollow">ad 3</a>). <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2" rel="nofollow">The question of the relationship between God's causality and evil</a> is not one that Aquinas overlooked.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52672170350623229512018-02-18T16:53:15.548-08:002018-02-18T16:53:15.548-08:00I don't think that is true. But adultery is st...I don't think that is true. But adultery is still just sin in the souls of the sinner. The act is not perverted. Bestiality and child rape, or homosexuality according to Aquinas, are acts that are perverted, acts which God sustains, actualizes, and thus participates in. Such a God would not be good, let alone holyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72201522020985257512018-02-18T15:09:25.833-08:002018-02-18T15:09:25.833-08:00And in the interview WLC was simply asked how his ...And in the interview WLC was simply asked how his day goes by,how he prepares and studies, its absurd to expect him to start recounting every painful state of affairs he has ever gone through. He simply meant to appreciate what his wife does for him, hardly anything which points to him living in great luxury. <br /><br />Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43267871438480526162018-02-18T15:03:20.954-08:002018-02-18T15:03:20.954-08:00I dealt with this already, and it shows philosophi...<i>I dealt with this already, and it shows philosophical weakness to behave like a parrot instead of dealing with my material.<br /><br />Repeating this over and over will not make it true. This is a way for libertarians to dodge the problem. No explanation is given as to why the reasons for A were adopted rather than B, and you refuse to give one. It's indistinguishable from randomness.</i><br /><br />Its an absurd charge that this doesn't deal with your <i>material</i> when this exactly what the flaw being pointed out in your <i>material</i> is, that moral responsibility requires that sort of contrastive explanation is precisely what libertatians reject. this is the point David Widerker and Ira M. Schnall make in their "On the Luck Objection to<br />Libertarianism". they deal with several formulations available in the literature so I recommend you check out their paper.<br /><br />And also the kind of unpalatable randomness is one in which something happens to something without a reason. It involves something passive, but there is an active agent involved in case of libertarian free choices. So the two cases can clearly be distinguished by presence of agents and patients. <br /><br /><i>The argument from evil is about showing an internal inconsistency within Christianity. Why does God allow what would be evil given theism? What the atheist personally believes regarding morality is irrelevant. This is a common red herring Christians use when dealing with the problem of evil.</i><br /><br />Here you simply miss the point, in order to prove such inconsistency you need to <i>observer</i> particular evils obviously if there is no evil there is no problem, to asses some state of affairs as evil you need to judge them as <i>morally bad</i>, but to do that there must be some moral properties and hence moral realism involved. <br /><br /><i>You don't even need the need moral language. You could just point out the suffering, and that loving beings want their beloved ones to be happy. Instead, your god lets babies be born with cancer and for children to be raped and molested.</i><br /><br />But that precisely is moral language, its only based on judgement that suffering involved in state of affairs you mention is bad and happiness is good, the problem is formed. SO No, these issues regarding morality aren't irrelevant to Problem of Evil. <br /><br /><i>I believe in the Messianic Age; that Brahman is evolving into Adonai. Part of this evolution requires that we stop believing in free will--so we can finally stop feeling prideful and guilty and blaming the poor for their being poor, and not be dependent on a pedophile-priest-shuffling Church for forgiveness. All you need is hard determinism to be forgiven, not a Church that tells you that you need to be married to have sex.</i><br /><br />This mostly amounts to gibberish which simply fails to address irrationality and unpalatability involved in your views, it surely makes much bigger a joke out of victim's suffering if its inflictor <i>should</i> not even feel guilt about what they've done.And also makes a joke of all the hard work and dedication agents put into their achievements if they don't even deserve this clearly virtuous feeling of pride and accomplishment.<br /><br />Its again much worse for poor if whoever caused their poverty simply did so by mistake himself deserving no blame who should feel no guilt and should take no responsibility. <br /><br />So once again your position is much more irrational and self defeating than the one you attack. <br /><br /><i>Philosophers who study the issue tend to be determinists. I don't know if you're correct, but free will is incoherent, as seen in my debate above, where Callum, etc. refuse to show how it's different from randomness and why A was chosen rather than B.</i><br /><br />Well many if not most determinists tend to be compatiblists. Based on your earlier comments containing many citations it seems you suppose that philosophers have conclusively established the issue against free will and responsibility, that is what I was challenging here . Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31859544656429349882018-02-18T14:09:36.242-08:002018-02-18T14:09:36.242-08:00Him to reject*Him to reject*Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.com