tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3102010935654448268..comments2024-03-19T00:20:18.049-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Why can’t these guys stay on topic? Or read?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21893051574612072892015-10-12T18:12:41.119-07:002015-10-12T18:12:41.119-07:00Exactly. And if he sees two clouds in the sky merg...Exactly. And if he sees two clouds in the sky merging into one he will conclude that 1+1=1. Also, never let him watch you make an omelette. All mathematical hell will break loose.pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86852792815550640392015-10-12T17:49:44.420-07:002015-10-12T17:49:44.420-07:00pck:
A while ago he claimed on Coyne's site t...pck:<br /><br /><i>A while ago he claimed on Coyne's site that there is "empirical evidence" that 2+2 equals 4 because, you see, if you put 2 apples on a table and then another 2 you get 4 apples.</i><br /><br />Good thing none of them rolled off the table. He could have gone along for years thinking there was empirical evidence that 2 + 2 equals 3.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61045043481369820892015-10-12T16:26:25.362-07:002015-10-12T16:26:25.362-07:00Goren's "math" is something to behol...Goren's "math" is something to behold. A while ago he claimed on Coyne's site that there is "empirical evidence" that 2+2 equals 4 because, you see, if you put 2 apples on a table and then another 2 you get 4 apples. And all of philosophy is bs anyway, for this very reason. I was foolish enough to attempt posting a reply correcting the misapprehension, which Coyne rejected, allegedly because of its length. Coyne had no qualms allowing a content-free, twice as long anti-theist rant in the same thread though. Sometimes the facts really do speak for themselves.pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5744796512452694212015-10-12T03:21:27.026-07:002015-10-12T03:21:27.026-07:00grodrigues: Ben Goren is the empirical proof of th...grodrigues: <i>Ben Goren is the empirical proof of the incongruous theory of humor. On the one hand we have smug, condescending superiority, on the other inane, ignorant prattle. Incongruence ensues, hilarity follows.</i><br /><br />We do indeed: Goren claims with smug, condescending superiority that "Ever since Newton, the entire concept of causality has been thrown into question, and it's been rendered utterly irrelevant by Twentieth Century physics. There isn't any cause that effects a particular radioactive atom to decay at a particular moment in time ... it just happens, for no reason whatsoever."<br /><br />Ah, a self-proclaimed expert on quantum mechanics who claims there's nothing to cause isotopes to decay with very different half-lives, or for the half-life of each to be stable and measurable with very high precision; no causality there at all, apparently.<br /><br />And we also see inane, ignorant prattle: Coyne has just posted a maths question -- a crocodile is chasing a zebra -- of a level which, though usually only if you get much better than a mere pass grade, qualifies you to enter university science courses; a number of Coyne's commenters had a go and evidently succeeded; Goren's answer says clearly that he didn't have a clue how to start tackling the question, and doesn't have the maths to even get onto a university physics course: "It depends…is the crocodile African or European, and in which general direction does it fart?"<br /><br />Goren also inadvertently displays his ignorance of biology: Europe is crocodile-free, excepting zoos, pets, and escaped or abandoned pets about to be re-captured; zebras are found only in zoos.Dhaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22970792720137592672015-10-10T13:49:58.718-07:002015-10-10T13:49:58.718-07:00Ben Goren said:
"Relativity? The whole point ...Ben Goren said:<br />"Relativity? The whole point of Relativity is that two observers in two different inertial frames will see causality swapped in various circumstances -- the person on the left will say that A caused B, but the person on the right will say that B caused A, and both people are right."<br /><br />This is not true. One will say that A occurred before B, and the other will say that B occurred before A. Causality is not involved.wsreadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515711394245434879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14085793444007360022015-10-09T15:36:54.173-07:002015-10-09T15:36:54.173-07:00@ John West:
Thank you.@ John West:<br /><br />Thank you.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52104531828015011372015-10-09T13:53:15.009-07:002015-10-09T13:53:15.009-07:00This link should work.<a href="http://www.isnature.org/Files/Jonas_Phil_Aspects_of_Darwinism.PDF" rel="nofollow">This link</a> should work.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470664030455998305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36130341940312164532015-10-09T13:06:31.992-07:002015-10-09T13:06:31.992-07:00This is weird. You're right, I tried the link ...This is weird. You're right, I tried the link and it didn't work--but it worked two days ago, so...<br /><br />I found the link on Google with a capitalized extension (www.isnature.org/Files/Jonas_Phil_Aspects_of_Darwinism.PDF), and it worked again... I don't know.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I can only say that I think every regular on this blog would get a real kick out of that essay, if they *could* read it...laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87186333865066162692015-10-09T11:59:31.313-07:002015-10-09T11:59:31.313-07:00I don't know much about Jonas, but reading a f...I don't know much about Jonas, but reading a few things about his argument in other sources (like DNW I can't access the link), it sounds quite interesting.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46936806892701893122015-10-09T10:21:07.405-07:002015-10-09T10:21:07.405-07:00" ... Philosophical Implications of Darwini...<br /><br />" ... Philosophical Implications of Darwinism." (Available at www.isnature.org/Files/Jonas_Phil_Aspects_of_Darwinism.pdf for now. 21 pages.) This would be, so to speak, a converging line of evidence, alongside the resurgence of Thomistic thinking. Is there anyone for whom this rings a bell?<br /> October 8, 2015 at 4:20 PM "<br /><br />Are you sure that that's a working link?DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79623591713159256562015-10-08T16:20:00.104-07:002015-10-08T16:20:00.104-07:00It is clear that Dr. Feser was onto something big ...It is clear that Dr. Feser was onto something big when he reminded folks of the Aristotelian insights of those scientists who pushed their materialism to its logical conclusions, and found it wanting. Also it has long seemed to me that among those scientists who did, and among other thinkers, there is a strong current, now neglected in rather the way that the classical theistic arguments are neglected, that belongs primarily to the German philosophical tradition. It seems one could trace this in biology, for example, from the reflections of Schrodinger, through Marjorie Grene, through Richard Lewontin, and so on. For example, the best precis known to me of the advance of science redounding upon itself and recovering its own beginnings, is Hans Jonas's gem of an essay, "The Philosophical Implications of Darwinism." (Available at www.isnature.org/Files/Jonas_Phil_Aspects_of_Darwinism.pdf for now. 21 pages.) This would be, so to speak, a converging line of evidence, alongside the resurgence of Thomistic thinking. Is there anyone for whom this rings a bell?laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13892789519837570942015-10-08T14:46:39.986-07:002015-10-08T14:46:39.986-07:00Oooooh, okay !
Well i really didn't focus on...Oooooh, okay !<br /><br /><br />Well i really didn't focus on that part of Goren's comment, so, you know... I didn't remember that detail.<br /><br />I could not agree more.The Frenchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3842454617754741052015-10-08T14:38:12.196-07:002015-10-08T14:38:12.196-07:00"that Goren is probably too obtuse"
And..."that Goren is probably too obtuse"<br /><br />And presumably too lazy as well.joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44447907654319274182015-10-08T13:50:33.540-07:002015-10-08T13:50:33.540-07:00I think Josh was saying that Goren is probably too...I think Josh was saying that Goren is probably too obtuse to try to spend the amount of time understanding the context, seeing as how he cannot even spend the amount of time reading a blog post.Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76544576836342963652015-10-08T13:32:41.188-07:002015-10-08T13:32:41.188-07:00Who's that ?
Mate, i don't think we'r...Who's that ?<br /><br />Mate, i don't think we're talking about the same commenter.<br /><br />If we're talking about that Goren guy (or something like that), the comment i wrote was appropriate and straight to the point.<br /><br /><br />Goren was writing about the alleged "hatred of ancient people, when it comes to the concept of something being eternal".<br /><br />I do not think it was true the least bit, and i take philosophers such as Aristotle (along with many other Ancient Greek philosophers), as proof they did in fact believe the universe was eternal, without any beginning in time.<br /><br /><br />Goren's comment was therefore ignorant as hell, and an important piece of evidence showing that he knew absolutely nothing about what he was talking about.<br /><br /><br />But when you criticize something, you'd better first know what it is you're criticizing.<br /><br />Otherwise, one's comment not appropriate and deserves remarks.The Frenchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77189793010388379512015-10-08T11:31:34.770-07:002015-10-08T11:31:34.770-07:00"What about actually reading the argument, ge..."What about actually reading the argument, getting to know the ancient world, and THEN commenting on the argument and the ancient world ?"<br /><br />The guy said a six page blog post with space between each paragraph was too long to read.joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31879093406518310072015-10-08T10:23:13.486-07:002015-10-08T10:23:13.486-07:00And the quantum vacuum doesn't actually fluctu...And the quantum vacuum doesn't actually fluctuate. Because of the uncertainty principle, the energy at any point has a range of possible values, Some of these values allow results that aren't possibly classically to happen, such as the decay of a nucleus through the escape of a particle from the nucleus. For something to happen, you need s system describable of Schrodinger's equation for it to happen to.Jinzanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155467948613318531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74760154255608183472015-10-08T10:12:34.474-07:002015-10-08T10:12:34.474-07:00My physics is a little rusty, but I believe a quan...My physics is a little rusty, but I believe a quantum vaccum by itself is not sufficient to serve as a cause, some real particle or field needs to be present for the virtual particles in the quantum vacuum to act upon. So I don't see how the quantum vacuum could serve as a first cause from the stanpoint of the physics involved.Jinzanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155467948613318531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66619747871629901092015-10-08T10:00:55.403-07:002015-10-08T10:00:55.403-07:00I don't know what you mean when you (appear to...I don't know what you mean when you (appear to) say that an axiom "contradicts logic itself" in seeming almost impossible to refute. Axioms are <i>supposed</i> to be impossible to refute, not just "almost" but entirely. What would become of logic if the axiomatic Principle of Non-Contradiction admitted of refutation?<br /><br />As for animals appearing to be self-movers: yes, that's exactly the point; they're not. Some of their parts move some of their other parts. If a quantum vacuum "falls under this category," then you're done.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26078801569295548272015-10-08T09:30:20.523-07:002015-10-08T09:30:20.523-07:00@Scott
With regards to the axiom nothing can be r...@Scott <br />With regards to the axiom nothing can be reduced from potency to act except by something actual I would argue that similiar to an animal that appears to be a self-mover but is actualized by its parts a QV would fall under this category as the potency to act axiom seems almost impossible to refute and doing so contradicts logic itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36435070307816716902015-10-08T09:01:57.068-07:002015-10-08T09:01:57.068-07:00@laubadetriste:
> I've heard tell of island...@laubadetriste:<br />> I've heard tell of islands far away still scarred ... [and] conventions violated in a manner horrible to tell...<br /><br />So, pretty much your typical Friday night on the streets of Glasgow, Scotland then?<br /><br />Klein The Bottlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60031256306531985312015-10-08T07:30:30.895-07:002015-10-08T07:30:30.895-07:00It further occurs to me that someone might describ...It further occurs to me that someone might describe a quantum vacuum as <i>unmoved</i> even though it's clearly not <i>immobile</i> if it "fluctuates." The idea would be, I suppose, that it's not moved <i>by</i> anything else.<br /><br />But in that case we need a rebuttal of the axiom that nothing is reduced from potency to act except by something already actual. It's obviously not sufficient to announce that a quantum vacuum might be a counterexample and/or ask why it isn't.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8881783567129584282015-10-08T07:13:09.791-07:002015-10-08T07:13:09.791-07:00How would something that fluctuates constitute som...How would something that fluctuates constitute something that doesn't move?<br /><br />More importantly, why do you need to rebut the claim anyway? As TheOFloinn has already pointed out, the First Way explicitly allows for the possibility that the universe has always existed—indeed, grants it for the sake of the argument.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30762859220400465082015-10-08T07:02:18.039-07:002015-10-08T07:02:18.039-07:00@TheOfloinn
With regards to the 1st Way and Quantu...@TheOfloinn<br />With regards to the 1st Way and Quantum Vacuum the reason I'm asking this is because a common objection to it as that an eternal always fluctuating vacuum could constitute as an umoved mover due to fluctuations not needing an external cause and I'm trying to seek a rebuttal to this claim and atheist also love to say that since a QV is "scientific" and there is no external cause for fluctuations Aristotle's mover is not required and we could just use this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39869086962214435552015-10-08T06:36:48.777-07:002015-10-08T06:36:48.777-07:00Not wanting to divert attention from Ed's work...Not wanting to divert attention from Ed's work or anything but the Quantum Vacuum question as put forward by Wes Morriston was raised here* and received a relatively technical answer re the Physics side of things.<br /><br />* http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=65&p=5Danielhttp://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/index.phpnoreply@blogger.com