tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4552489519945018242..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Review of SwinburneEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger205125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80384896708414108722020-01-26T14:20:12.962-08:002020-01-26T14:20:12.962-08:00Sorry , Mr. Green. Won't do it again.Sorry , Mr. Green. Won't do it again.Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71895148711514762982020-01-26T10:19:39.137-08:002020-01-26T10:19:39.137-08:00Red, you must have missed my question to you above...Red, you must have missed my question to you above. Why do you keep replying to someone whom Prof. Feser has asked us to ignore?Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-296263609679996442020-01-26T09:45:44.197-08:002020-01-26T09:45:44.197-08:00"Arrangement changes. The amount of matter/en..."Arrangement changes. The amount of matter/energy (or more generally, material) never changes."<br /><br />But given that arrangement itself is a material, material does change.Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67978110212136554492020-01-26T08:30:10.963-08:002020-01-26T08:30:10.963-08:00Red,
" So if arrangement doesn't exist th...Red,<br />" So if arrangement doesn't exist then nothing ever changes."<br />Arrangement changes. The amount of matter/energy (or more generally, material) never changes.<br /><br />That's what E=mc^2 describes.<br />The arrangement between matter and energy changes. The arrangement of matter and energy changes. The net amount of matter + energy never changes.<br /><br />So, the account for change of arrangement in the present moment is of a different sort than the account for continued existence of matter/energy in the present moment.<br /><br />The observation of change of arrangement leads to various arguments for causation of motion or change. That's one thing.<br /><br />The observation of no change in the amount of matter/energy is very different, because there is no observed change in this aspect of matter/energy. The amount of matter + the amount of energy never changes. Therefore there is no call for a first sustainer, or first changer, to account for no change in the net amount of matter/energy in existence.<br /><br />Thomism, however, invokes the notion that matter/energy would somehow just "blink out of existence" were it not for the action of a first sustainer, or first changer. <br /><br />Thus, Thomism asserts a changer to account for no change, an extravagant, superfluous, unnecessary, and uncalled for speculation in the extreme.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47494542475107304402020-01-26T07:48:35.292-08:002020-01-26T07:48:35.292-08:00Tony,
Ok, thanks for that reference.
Yes, I read ...Tony,<br />Ok, thanks for that reference.<br /><br />Yes, I read Dr. Feser's post regarding Cundy and commented on it, you can search for my handle there if you feel like it.<br /><br />That post by Dr. Feser of 20 Dec 2019 is the best writing of Dr. Feser I have yet to read, very well argued indeed.<br /><br />But, I don't see the direct connection between that post and the subject of this exchange here at this time. Maybe I was so focused on cheering Dr. Feser on as he picked apart the B theory of time that I missed some points he might have made about the first sustainer and conservation of matter/energy?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88166122612676212342020-01-26T00:12:49.259-08:002020-01-26T00:12:49.259-08:00Why couldn’t all the infinite parts just have comb...Why couldn’t all the infinite parts just have combined themselves into composites?acryo638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15194268468650860562020-01-25T23:23:19.676-08:002020-01-25T23:23:19.676-08:00Stardust,
I think the person being referred to wa...Stardust,<br /><br />I think the person being referred to was Dr. Cundy, the Cambridge quantum physicist who Feser debated time Theories with several weeks prior. <br /><br />www.quantum-thomist.co.ukTony montananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85212900242871933242020-01-25T22:20:08.300-08:002020-01-25T22:20:08.300-08:00and of course even given your bizarre view there i...and of course even given your bizarre view there is still something or other here that exists.<br /><br /><i>it is a relationship between things that exist.</i><br /><br />Go figure.<br /><br /><br /><br />Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86442623033883079212020-01-25T22:17:53.782-08:002020-01-25T22:17:53.782-08:00An arrangement is not a thing that exists, it is a...<i>An arrangement is not a thing that exists, it is a relationship between things that exist.</i><br /><br />Ok, but then given your view when change happens then only thing that comes to be and pass out of existence is arrangement. So if arrangement doesn't exist then nothing ever changes. But obviously change does occur so your view is false. Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50447817996774453172020-01-25T17:52:56.911-08:002020-01-25T17:52:56.911-08:00Say there Mr Green, maybe you can help me out then...Say there Mr Green, maybe you can help me out then, I mean, I know I am just a nutcase and all, but I learned in school that matter/energy are conserved, so the amount of matter/energy in existence never changes.<br /><br />Why then would one call for a first changer to account for no change?<br /><br />In the case of no change which is the nutcase position?<br />1.No change calls for no changer.<br />2.A changer is required to account for no change.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55136393409981939182020-01-25T16:03:43.498-08:002020-01-25T16:03:43.498-08:00Red: Dude, stop wasting my time repeating same poi...Red: <i>Dude, stop wasting my time repeating same point again and again</i><br /><br />You're the one who keeps replying to a banned nutcase. What is wrong with you?Mr Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59819135376317769832020-01-25T14:58:39.760-08:002020-01-25T14:58:39.760-08:00Red,
"Right but then the arrangement itself i...Red,<br />"Right but then the arrangement itself is a material given your definition of the<br />term."<br />No, not even colloquially, because an arrangement is not "a thing", nor is an arrangement "stuff".<br /><br />An arrangement is not a thing that exists, it is a relationship between things that exist.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78200757552244040962020-01-25T14:34:53.449-08:002020-01-25T14:34:53.449-08:00I am an arrangement of a collection of existent ma...<i>I am an arrangement of a collection of existent material that is nominally within a set for a period of time, my lifetime, and then that material re-arranges elsewhere when I die.</i><br /><br />Right but then the arrangement itself is a material given your definition of the<br />term. So when the arrangement ceases to exist a material ceases to exist.<br />Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10260242424704188522020-01-25T14:06:45.730-08:002020-01-25T14:06:45.730-08:00Red,
I am an identifiable arrangement of material ...Red,<br />I am an identifiable arrangement of material that exists.<br /><br />When I die that arrangement of material will change, but the material will persist.<br /><br />There is no independent existence of me. There is no fundamental existent thing called me.<br /><br />I am an arrangement of a collection of existent material that is nominally within a set for a period of time, my lifetime, and then that material re-arranges elsewhere when I die.<br /><br />Not controversial? You don't seem to be familiar with modern materialism.<br /><br />That is why I put "a thing that exists" in a list of colloquial characterizations of material, not a rigorous statement, just a loose common reference.<br /><br />Modern physics provides the most accurate available description of material, all of which makes eminent sense to those who understand the terms.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32001897421286096592020-01-25T13:14:43.013-08:002020-01-25T13:14:43.013-08:00and its pretty obvious that material comes to be a...and its pretty obvious that material comes to be and ceases to be given this definition.<br /><br />Here is an uncontroversial example: You exist, therefor you are material ,given your definition, You came to be at your conception and you will cease to be at your deand its pretty obvious that material comes to be and ceases to be given this definition.<br /><br />Here is an uncontroversial example: You exist, therefor you are material ,given your definition, You came to be at your conception and you will cease to be at your death.Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88335542383757070742020-01-25T13:10:35.631-08:002020-01-25T13:10:35.631-08:00Colloquially it is stuff, a thing, something that ...<i>Colloquially it is stuff, a thing, something that exists.</i><br /><br />Like I explained earlier that makes no sense.<br /><br />Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38485867426057095042020-01-25T11:37:05.104-08:002020-01-25T11:37:05.104-08:00big mike January 25, 2020 at 10:51 AM
"Lol if...big mike January 25, 2020 at 10:51 AM<br />"Lol if the law of conversation of matter invalidated this argument I wonder why there are dozens of scientists that defend and support these arguments."<br />The argument for a Thomistic first sustainer for the existence of the material universe? Supported by scientists? Who?<br /><br />No, I have never heard a scientist argue for a god that sustains the existence of material moment to moment.<br /><br /><br />"One of whom Feser posted a dialogue with literally two weeks ago."<br />Sorry, I missed that. Would you please post the title and date of that dialog, or a link? <br /><br />Suppose you had $100 in your wallet in the evening, and in the morning you rise, look in your wallet, and that $100 is still there. Do you think "hmm, I'll bet a thief took that $100 in the middle of the night, but then returned it"? Or "hmm, I'll bet Santa Clause put another $200 into my wallet, but then came back and took it back out again"?<br /><br />Now, if the $100 you had in the evening was now $50 or $0 then you would go looking for a thief. Or if the $100 had turned to $300 then you would wonder who your benefactor was.<br /><br />But $100 remaining $100 is just what is expected, and you do not invent convoluted stories about thieves or benefactors to account for your money having been conserved.<br /><br />If material were to blink out of existence then that would be a change calling for a changer. The fact that material is observed to be conserved then simply does not call for a first sustainer.<br /><br />Thomism invokes a changer to account for no change, which is truly absurd.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34125316268385150062020-01-25T11:21:12.989-08:002020-01-25T11:21:12.989-08:00Red January 25, 2020 at 4:43 AM
"LOL, you'...Red January 25, 2020 at 4:43 AM<br />"LOL, you're the one who seem to be having extreme difficulty even providing mere sensible definition of a crucial term in his argument."<br /><br />Asked and answered many posts ago. That's how I started out on StardustyPsyche January 23, 2020 at 8:03 PM<br /><br />That's pretty clear:<br />"Material is that from which the term "materialist" is derived.<br /><br />Colloquially it is stuff, a thing, something that exists.<br /><br />Modern physics describes material in terms of the standard model, particles, fields, space-time.<br /><br />Special relativity describes the equivalence between two forms of material, matter and energy, with the famous equation E=mc^2."<br /><br />Later I point out that these are simply the most accurate descriptions of material presently available. In other words, it very well may turn out that all the descriptions of modern physics we presently have are only describing aggregate behaviors of material, with even more fundamental properties yet to be discovered.<br /><br />But whatever level you wish to call it, colloquially simply "stuff", or "matter/energy" or by using the whole of modern physics, material is conserved. We never observe new material coming into existence or passing out of existence.<br /><br />When apparent objects seem to disappear we find scientifically that in truth the material the objects were composed of was conserved and only changed form.<br /><br />Thus, there is no call for a first sustainer of existence. The Thomistic notion of a first sustainer is convoluted and irrational.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1088145047743722872020-01-25T10:51:26.932-08:002020-01-25T10:51:26.932-08:00Lol if the law of conversation of matter invalidat...Lol if the law of conversation of matter invalidated this argument I wonder why there are dozens of scientists that defend and support these arguments. One of whom Feser posted a dialogue with literally two weeks ago. big mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23522776963432343892020-01-25T04:43:35.453-08:002020-01-25T04:43:35.453-08:00LOL, you're the one who seem to be having extr...LOL, you're the one who seem to be having extreme difficulty even providing mere sensible definition of a crucial term in his argument. Though now I am pretty sure this would not have been the case if one existed in the first place.Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25421830676580991412020-01-25T00:14:25.361-08:002020-01-25T00:14:25.361-08:00Red,
"Dude, stop wasting my time repeating sa...Red,<br />"Dude, stop wasting my time repeating same point again and again, just define your terms . Like I said, none of those ever talk about material. "<br />If you don't understand that the standard model is a description of material then you need a fundamental education. I can't help you with that. You will have to do your own self-education or perhaps enroll at your local university.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77616719845056862772020-01-24T23:50:13.054-08:002020-01-24T23:50:13.054-08:00Dude, stop wasting my time repeating same point ag...Dude, stop wasting my time repeating same point again and again, just define your terms . Like I said, none of those ever talk about material. <br /><br /><i>Once you learn the basics of how modern science describes material you will become familiar with the conservation of material, and thus understand that there is no call for a first changer to account for no change.</i><br /><br />I don't think you understand what is actually being discussed here. <br />Now unless you give a sensible definition, I won't reply further. I don't see your point here. Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29268607811727189082020-01-24T17:38:03.505-08:002020-01-24T17:38:03.505-08:00Is this argument that God is the one who began put...Is this argument that God is the one who began putting things together as composites or that all parts of a composite trace their existence to a non composite simple GodPot of goldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18472803535228048892020-01-24T17:00:46.101-08:002020-01-24T17:00:46.101-08:00Red,
Asked and answered multiple times.
If you do...Red,<br />Asked and answered multiple times.<br /><br />If you don't understand that the standard model, particles, fields, space-time, and matter/energy equivalence all describe material then all I can suggest is that you research and learn the meanings of the terminology.<br /><br />Once you learn the basics of how modern science describes material you will become familiar with the conservation of material, and thus understand that there is no call for a first changer to account for no change.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16991275999778769962020-01-24T15:33:27.477-08:002020-01-24T15:33:27.477-08:00But none of those seem to have anything to do with...But none of those seem to have anything to do with "material". That is why I keep asking just what do you think it is? Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.com