tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4596762924582009857..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Craig, conventionalism, and voluntarismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5916090763717229172020-04-08T20:25:21.803-07:002020-04-08T20:25:21.803-07:00RYoung,
“I love how you left out truth in this sta...RYoung,<br />“I love how you left out truth in this statement. Of course we can equate… (of “Further, you equate, in some sense, the principle of non contradiction, good, being, and existence”-Christian).<br />To “equate” does not mean to find a common aspect, rather it means that all aspects are identical.<br /><br />To find a similar aspect among items that are otherwise dissimilar is not to equate those items, rather, it merely identifies those aspects of those items that are in that respect equivalent.<br /><br />If god is identical to the principle of non-contradiction, and god is identical to good, and god is identical to being, and god is identical to existence then the principle of non-contradiction, good, being, and existence are all identical to each other, which is incoherent.<br /><br />“Could you give an argument for that?” (that god’s natures are ontologically prior to god on the Christian assertions provided).<br />I just did. To restate, since god did not choose his natures, nor can he change them those natures simply are the way they are independent of any will or action powers upon his natures, because god has none. Yet god is dependant on those natures to be as he is, to do what he does, to will what he does, to act as he does. He can only act in accordance with his natures, but he cannot act against or change or choose or alter his natures, so clearly his natures are ontologically prior to him.<br /><br />“a Thomist would argue that there is one nature in God”<br />Incoherent. That would mean that logic, good, being, existence, and all the rest are all identical to each other.<br /><br />“God just is Being, Truth, and Goodness. It is no mystery that this is coherent, as they are all subsumed under the genus of being: Being simpliciter, Being actualized intentionally in an intellect, and Being actualized in fulfillment of a thing's ends.”<br />That statement takes the form<br />“The following is not incoherent”<br />(Incoherent statement set)<br /><br />What is it that is existing in existence itself?<br />Absolutely nothing at all? Then in what sense does absolutely nothing at all have an existence?<br />Something? Then the existence is not of itself, rather, of that something.<br />The term “existence itself” is clearly incoherent.<br /><br />“an intellect” of a perfectly simple being.<br />Incoherent. As are many of your statements. <br /><br />You claim complexity is simple. What sense does that make?<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25613048535150243382020-04-07T15:17:34.539-07:002020-04-07T15:17:34.539-07:00Logic is just a subset of truth. They are necessar...Logic is just a subset of truth. They are necessarily true statements.<br /><br />"Further, you equate, in some sense, the principle of non contradiction, good, being, and existence."<br /><br />I love how you left out truth in this statement. Of course we can equate the principle of non-contradiction with Truth, because it is true. It is one participation in the transcendental Truth, which is God.<br /><br />"But how is god's nature not ontologically prior to god? Since god did not create himself, and god has always been as god is, and god did not choose his natures, then his natures must be ontologically prior to god."<br /><br />Could you give an argument for that? You are begging the question when you make such a claim, as a Thomist would argue that there is one nature in God, which is Himself (not natures). We don't have a voluntaristic conception of God, though you seem to assume one when you say that if God did not choose his nature it is ontologically prior to him. To repeat a point that has been made countlessly many times on this blog, God just is Being, Truth, and Goodness. It is no mystery that this is coherent, as they are all subsumed under the genus of being: Being simpliciter, Being actualized intentionally in an intellect, and Being actualized in fulfillment of a thing's ends.<br /><br />Though you claim to point out a logical contradiction in your final paragraph, you have not. You simply resort to a question-begging, incredulously-staring, philosophically insubstantial rhetorical question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75685345892291749962020-04-06T19:10:35.904-07:002020-04-06T19:10:35.904-07:00The truth of the matter, is that, you used your po...The truth of the matter, is that, you used your position to threaten me. You ‘implied’ that if I blocked you that there would be consequences.<br /><br />You can’t force someone to read an article and that is what you were trying to do with me. You were trying to force me. <br /><br />If the page number was in your article, then all you had to say is …<br /><br />“ The page number in William Lane Craig’s book is XX and it is also in my article if you would like to read that. “<br /><br />No one from ‘Reasonable Faith’ at any time emailed me or messaged me or tagged me and asked me to tone things down. <br /><br />On the post regarding the Rapture I have read where people called William Lane Craig a “Biblical Moron” and a “False Teacher”. I have never said anything like that about William Lane Craig and I suspect that those people were never blocked.<br /><br />It is also the case that I never made a habit of positing under someone else’s name or their part of the main thread. Sometimes I did but mostly I did not.<br /><br />Rather, I made my own post and people would come and troll me under my own post. I would ask people to stop and they would not. <br /><br />The further truth, is that, I studied William Lane Craig’s arguments for years - especially and mainly the moral side of things. WLC’S Molinism shows a cruel and immoral God. His God creates people whom He knows will reject Him and go to Hell. This is morally repulsive.<br /><br />I showed what the problems were with William Lane Craig’s position and arguments in a legitimate way and I can see that Reasonable Faith ( including yourself ) did not like that. I cut too close to the bone and you can only cut too close to the bone for so long until you get removed.<br /><br />The fact is that you have been given a little bit of power and you’re on a power trip. If people don’t read what you want them to read and do what you want them to do then you will throw your weight around and try and get them removed from the page.<br /><br />You are bound by a different ethical code that I am. You never followed that ethical code and try and win me for Christ. In fact, you turn me off Christ by your behaviour. <br /><br />As Paul writes ….<br /><br />“ Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person “.<br /><br />( Colossians 4:6 English Standard Version )<br /><br />You failed to do what Paul wrote. Apologetics is pointless if you can’t win people to Christ but rather turn them off Christ by your behaviour.Mirabillishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034974928114432100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66730684524694627812020-04-06T14:26:15.792-07:002020-04-06T14:26:15.792-07:00God IS personal in Christianity. Personhood is a p...God IS personal in Christianity. Personhood is a perfection and, as the source of it, God also has it, eminently. "Theistic personalism" is a bad label; the idea it is criticizing is that so-called "personalists" make God too much like a person exactly like us when there should be subtler distinctions. "Classical theists" are correct on this point, but "personalism" is a terrible label, as it makes it seem as if classical theists do not believe God is personal, when in fact God must (at the very least) have as much personhood as any personal creature He creates. <br /><br />In any case, the dispute between "classical theism" versus "theistic personalism" is overblown. It is mostly a matter of having an adequate understanding of the divine nature, but for all practical purposes it's all theism at the end of the day. And there are different versions of DS, anyway - the scotist version, for instance, holds that there are formal distinctions between God's attributes. Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84851212112358729772020-04-06T12:01:12.587-07:002020-04-06T12:01:12.587-07:00Craig, I understand that you're probably still...Craig, I understand that you're probably still sore about being blocked from the Reasonable Faith Facebook page because of your consistent insults. You had been warned several times, and not just by me. You just can't talk to people like that and expect there to be no consequences. <br /><br />But, as I said before, the page numbers you're asking for are in my article, which you apparently still haven't read. I've had several very amicable conversations with people who have been willing to read what I've already written (see the above thread with @Talmid). If you'd still like to have a civil conversation, then please read my response to Feser and let me know your thoughts.<br /><br />Also, here are my degrees:<br />- BA Spanish/International Trade (double major from University of Central Arkansas)<br />- BA Religious Studies (University of Nebraska - Omaha)<br />- MA International Relations (American Military University)<br />- MA Christian Apologetics (Biola University, Talbot School of Theology)Tyson Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484548711122439609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81242263454101800562020-04-06T08:37:47.000-07:002020-04-06T08:37:47.000-07:00I wonder if the doctrine of the trinity does requi...I wonder if the doctrine of the trinity does require a kind of theistic personalism. If there are three divine persons, then doesn't that give god a personal nature? Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88018678347231345912020-04-06T04:27:01.743-07:002020-04-06T04:27:01.743-07:00Tyson James who wrote that article is one of the m...Tyson James who wrote that article is one of the most unethical characters I have ever come across. I asked him to provide the page number from William Lane Craig’s book that made what William Lane Craig said clear and so as to refute Feser.<br /><br />Tyson James flat refused to do that after I asked him a number of times. He instead tried to force me to read his article / reply that he wrote to Feser.<br /><br />I told him that if he kept posting to me then I would block him. He then threatened me by ‘implying’ that if I blocked him that there would be consequences ( as he told me he worked for Reasonable Faith ).<br /><br />Because he would not stop I blocked him and sure enough he had me removed from Reasonable Faith. He used his position of authority to get his own way. <br /><br />Tyson James is a try hard who wants to be desperately noticed when I suspect he has not even got an undergraduate degree in Philosophy or Theology.<br /><br />Mirabillishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034974928114432100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47912699304606211752020-04-04T23:42:28.771-07:002020-04-04T23:42:28.771-07:00I agree with Bill. Divine Simplicity means God c...I agree with Bill. Divine Simplicity means God can't contain in his essence any real physical or metaphysical distinctions. Strong Simplicity might suggest God can contain absolutely no real distinctions of any kind (which would negate the doctrine of the Trinity which allows for mysterious real distinctions of subsisting divine relations but that is outside of natural theology) but at minimum God cannot have real physical and or real metaphysical distinction contained in the divine essence.<br /><br />I don't think Craig counts at all as a Classical Theist. At best his theistic personalism might lean more toward the classic but his denial of divine simplicity renders it impossible he be considered one.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86919462947503686042020-04-04T23:34:00.660-07:002020-04-04T23:34:00.660-07:00@grodrigues
If I had my way I would just spend ev...@grodrigues<br /><br />If I had my way I would just spend every waking hour calling Stardusty gay & repeating ad nausea the same gay meme joke I tell referencing Milo Yiannopoulos and other troll insults I could think of(& I can think of a lot) but Ed dinna wants me to lower the discussion.<br /><br />Well he naturally has a point and of course I respect his rules.<br /><br />But at some point Trolls only merit trolling.<br /><br />Anyway good to see you join the discussion. I thought I sensed a disturbance in the Force where the collective intelligence of the blog rose exponentially. Not that I am in any way dissing the intelligence of the majority of the fine people who post here its just that Stardusty is just a drag on said collective intelligence when his stupidity is countered by a fine intellect it cannot go unnoticed.<br /><br />Cheers sir. Carry on the good fight.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54068975243020167122020-04-04T21:52:43.293-07:002020-04-04T21:52:43.293-07:00"Admittedly, I've always found Hylomorphi..."Admittedly, I've always found Hylomorphic Dualism difficult to understand"<br /><br />I understand, ancient philosophy is pretty hard to get at first, even i might make some mistakes here. Since you seems to have problems getting Hylomorphism, i will try to help:<br /><br />What you think is the form, the structure of the body, is actually a proper accident: it is not the form, but is a caracteristic that "flows" from the form. You can't really "feel" the forms with the senses, so don't try to form mental images much.<br /><br />First you need to forget a bit our modern concepts and understand what Aristotle meant by matter and form:<br /><br />Matter: What has the potential to be material things. Prime matter(which can't exist,but who cares) would be matter completely separate from form, pure potentiality.<br /><br />Form(or "model"): What actualizes that potential and makes the matter be the matter of a thing.<br /><br />So any material thing you see is a composite of form and matter, cats, bananas, rocks, cells, molecules, quarks etc. Real prime matter can't really exist, every material thing has matter and form. <br /><br />Now, there are substancial forms(who defines the substance or nature) and accidental forms(accidents on the form). A marble block has the substancial form of marble but his shape or weight are accidents, they can change and the thing still is a bunch of marble, but if the block changes so much that the substancial form changes them that marble is gone and the matter turns into the matter of another thing.<br /><br />So, on your example our body number of atoms is a accident, they can change a bit and the body remains the same as long as the substancial form remains the same, this being valid of anything. In fact, what we call soul just is a living thing substancial form, no interaction needed.<br /><br /> Now, thomists like me(and probably Aristotle himself) believe that the rational part of the human mind does not needs the body directly, meaning it does not need it after it is gone so the human soul survives death in a deficient way(God help her, so no problem here), but we don' think we need the soul being immaterial to have identity over time, even a material being like a cat or a banana have identity over time as long as the substancial form remains.<br /><br />I hope this helps you understand Hylomorphism better. I believe it can deal with a lot of philosophical problems.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66334900657771709292020-04-04T21:52:21.379-07:002020-04-04T21:52:21.379-07:00@Tyson James
I think we are kinda talking past ea...@Tyson James<br /><br />I think we are kinda talking past each other a bit, so sorry because i think i need to be clear snd so this will be long.<br /><br />"Yes, I think Dr. Craig would say that the model is mind-dependent. But that doesn't mean that God could simply consider any arrangement of particles a "banana," since the model may simply be a necessary derivative of God's perfect rationality. Whether or not God chooses to create such things is surely contingent, but perhaps the model itself is not."<br /><br />You are saying that God has a sort of model of what a banana is and that this model is necessary like 1 + 1 = 2?<br /><br />I agree. It seems that we both agree that there are necessary "models" that we and God knows and that we use to classify things. The platonist believe that these things exist in a world different from the material and mental ones, a thing we both reject.<br /><br />Our disagreement here seems that i think things actually follows these "models". To me, the "models:" do exist on a sort of universal way in our minds(i mean, the concept of triangle you or i have is no way particular) and in a particular way on things. Like, the "model" or form of a banana exist not only on ours or God minds but also in every banana as a sort of part of they.<br /><br />You seems to believe that we and God have these concepts in our minds but that they are not part of the physical world at all, with the physical world being only a bunch of particles moving with no real order. Dr. Craig seems to believe in this as well, especially seeing his defense of there being no possibility of value of any kind on atheism(a true thing of Naturalism but not of every form of Atheism).<br /><br />Now, i argue that this point of view entail a sort of Mereological Niilism where there are no physical objects but just a bunch of particles moving and every appearence of real order just come from the way the mind is forced to organize experience by her structure. A world view where we have God, non-physical minds and a bunch of particles: a non-materialism Atomism like in Pierre Gassendi, i guess.<br /><br />Not only this view has no good reason to be believed but he also makes our experience of the world pretty away from reality, forces us to believe in Substance Dualism(i view i believe is false) and he also makes material things a bit unintelligible, since, like George Berkeley defended, the idea of a separation of primary and secundary qualities on things is hard to make, to say the least.<br /><br />Cont.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26888238292717542402020-04-04T14:51:38.814-07:002020-04-04T14:51:38.814-07:00@Talmid
//So it is mind-dependent or not? Is the ...@Talmid<br /><br />//So it is mind-dependent or not? Is the organization really a feature of the banana or God just look at this bunch of particles and call they a banana?//<br /><br />Yes, I think Dr. Craig would say that the model is mind-dependent. But that doesn't mean that God could simply consider any arrangement of particles a "banana," since the model may simply be a necessary derivative of God's perfect rationality. Whether or not God chooses to create such things is surely contingent, but perhaps the model itself is not. <br /><br />To help motivate this intuition, consider that Saul Kripke developed the idea of necessary a posteriori truths, such as the atomic numbers of the elements. Since there are such necessary truths about elements, perhaps there are also such necessary truths about the model of bananas. But on free logic and a deflationary theory of truth, one need not have "natures" as actually existing objects in the mind of God in order to have necessary models of things. Nor does it seem that one needs to reject formal causation, as God himself could serve as the formal cause of the models of all created things rather than "natures."<br /><br />//How interaction would happen is pretty much it. In this view, the body is like a bunch of dominos, where every particle moves another. The soul them would be like someone from outside who hits the dominos, essencially changing the order.//<br /><br />Admittedly, I've always found Hylomorphic Dualism difficult to understand. Proponents seem to be saying that the soul is essentially the structure of the body, and that it is this unity of structure or form with body which comprises a human being. But then it seems to me that identity over time is inexplicable, since the loss of a single atom changes the identity of the body and therefore the identity of the total form-body composite. The new composite might still be a human being, but since identity is a necessary relation, it would be an entirely new human being with every change. On substance dualism, the immaterial soul is the seat of enduring identity, not the body. This also seems to make sense of the biblical claim that to be absent the body is to be present with the Lord. Perhaps you can provide some clarity here regarding how hylomorphic dualism handles these issues.Tyson Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484548711122439609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31806653604997279972020-04-02T20:28:57.605-07:002020-04-02T20:28:57.605-07:00Just correcting a mistake:
"If you pick this...Just correcting a mistake:<br /><br />"If you pick this dificults and add my problems with the early modern denial of formal and final causes, you can see why i think the soul relation to the body is best explained by Hylomorphic Dualism."<br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68375838731543862232020-04-02T20:25:45.861-07:002020-04-02T20:25:45.861-07:00@Tyson James
Oh, thanks, on my view i writed a lo...@Tyson James<br /><br />Oh, thanks, on my view i writed a lot, but okay. <br /><br />"It is a banana because God considers certain patterns of particles to be banana-like according to his model."<br /><br />So it is mind-dependent or not? Is the organization really a feature of the banana or God just look at this bunch of particles and call they a banana?<br /><br />It seems clear to me that this bunch of particles being a banana and other bunch being my cat are objective features of the universe and not just my or God point of view, so i defend that there are in each bunch of particles a formal cause, a nature, that make a thing what it is, Aristotle Hylomorphism. <br /><br />So the bunch of particles that we call a banana are what they are because they have a banana form that unites them, the cat the cat form, we the human form etc. This probably sounds strange, but i can't see how there would even exis diferent material objects if there are no objective diferences between diferent bunchs of particles.<br /><br />"You mentioned that you didn't think substance dualism can't work. Do you reject it due to the so-called interaction problem or is there another reason?"<br /><br />How interaction would happen is pretty much it. In this view, the body is like a bunch of dominos, where every particle moves another. The soul them would be like someone from outside who hits the dominos, essencially changing the order.<br /><br />Now, to this to work, the immaterial soul has to generate a force capable of moving the particles or be capable of redirectioning the energy that already exist. Not only would be hard to explain how she can move something being immaterial(this is the less important, since angels exist), how she can change the order of the dominos in a way we can't detect it with modern technology and how exactly this interaction feels so natural to us when it would be like a angel moving objects.<br /><br />If you pick this dificults and add my problems with the early modern denial of formal and eficient causes, you can see why i think the soul relation to the body is best explained by Hylomorphic Dualism.<br /><br />"Do you take natures to be objects or do you take them to be true descriptions of things?"<br /><br />Do you mean objects as like a abstract object? I don't believe abstract objects or platonic forms truly exist. I do believe they exist in things and intellects, but i'am no platonist.<br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4249036548971144192020-04-02T16:49:55.002-07:002020-04-02T16:49:55.002-07:00Very thoughtful response, Talmid. I don't thin...Very thoughtful response, Talmid. I don't think Craig would necessarily reject formal causation. He explains formal causation in several places as "a sort of pattern or information content of the effect." So, for bananas, he would say that the formal cause is God himself, who supplies the information content for the model of bananas. So, it's not the particles being constituent parts that makes a banana a banana. It is a banana because God considers certain patterns of particles to be banana-like according to his model. But notice that one does not need "models" or "patterns" to be existing things in order to make true statements about them.<br /><br />You mentioned that you didn't think substance dualism can't work. Do you reject it due to the so-called interaction problem or is there another reason?<br /><br />You also say that natures are "in things and in minds." Do you take natures to be objects or do you take them to be true descriptions of things? The latter seems consistent with Craig's neutralist anti-realism.Tyson Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484548711122439609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2680335708000384002020-04-02T06:29:00.578-07:002020-04-02T06:29:00.578-07:00Talmid,
""if there is no God there are n...Talmid,<br />""if there is no God there are no objective values and duties""--Craig<br /><br />I agree with Craig that on atheism there are no objective moral truths, only a sort of herd morality.<br /><br />"if you do believe in some sort of realism about universals, you can get something like natural law and defend that this premise is false."<br />I don't see how this is the case. Realism can get you the personal sense of ought that is generally shared by most members of a social species given their broadly similar physiology, hence the herd morality Craig describes rather well, I think.<br /><br />I don't see how one would get from the orderly progression of submicroscopic material interactions to an absolute moral truth of any kind.<br /><br />I disagree with Craig on many points, but I agree with him that on atheism there can be no objective morality.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49637279935034281342020-04-02T06:18:03.904-07:002020-04-02T06:18:03.904-07:00grod,
" There is no reasoning with him"
...grod,<br />" There is no reasoning with him"<br />How would you know? You never post actual arguments against my points, and thus you have no demonstrated capacity to do so.<br /><br />"will continue talking about anything and everything,"<br />False, my posts are almost entirely in direct reference to the OP on the merits of the arguments of the OP.<br /><br />Else, I post in direct response to the arguments made by some other poster, again on the merits of the arguments.<br /><br />You assert that you a Portuguese mathematical physicist, or some similar sort of academic, correct? Perhaps you can find an error in one or all of these statement for the benefit of another poster here who seems to deny them:<br />All motion is in space.<br />You are in space.<br />There is no dividing line between the surface of the Earth and interplanetary space.<br />Motion, or perhaps more accurately, kinetic energy, is never lost, only transferred or transformed.<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by, would you please point out my errors in the above statements?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47190174186953653022020-04-02T04:28:17.603-07:002020-04-02T04:28:17.603-07:00@Anonymous:
I do not know if you are the Anonymou...@Anonymous:<br /><br />I do not know if you are the Anonymous that keeps telling Stardusty to go away, but if you are, thank you. It keeps us (or I should say, at least me) in line and the combox moderately clean and orderly. There is no reasoning with him and it is now clear that the man has no shame and will continue talking about anything and everything, elbowing its way into any conversation because public forums are a freeferall, even if no one responds him. He has now become an annoyance, like a sore boil, that one wishes away but bears with the best good will one can muster and God's grace grants -- it is a penance, in keeping with the spirit of Lent.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32423176207067225382020-04-01T20:21:34.159-07:002020-04-01T20:21:34.159-07:00@Tyson James
"Nature" and "essence...@Tyson James<br /><br />"Nature" and "essence" are the same, the formal cause of a thing on diferent words. For me, the best argument to the existence of formal casuality probably is that a denial of it would make the existence of different material things ilusory. If, like a metaphysical naturalist, you deny that forms or essences exist, is hard to see how exactly the material world is not just a bunch of particles moved by... something.<br /><br /> If there is no formal casuality, them there is no diference between a rock, a cat, a bottle etc. They would just be particles moving and nothing else, as a more clever naturalist like Alex Rosenberg defends. If you do believe that the particles of say, a banana, are truly the parts of a thing, them the particles on this arrangement does have something different that the others: they are part of a thing(the banana) and not your average floating particles.<br /><br /> The only way to explain our experience if you deny formal casuality would be to defend a kantian view where the mind gives the raw data the order and variety we see. Not only we have no reason to believe in that but a kantian view would force Dr. Craig to worry more about Kant denial of the possibility of knowledgment of the Noumena(not that he care, since Craig correctly reject Kant idea of antinomies: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-limits-of-reason/)<br /><br />Other big problem is that on this view the soul can only be a efficient cause of the moviment of the body(since formal casuality like in Hylomorphic Dualism is out), getting you stuck with Substance Dualism, a view i think just can't work.<br /><br /><br />I'am just assuming Aristotelian Realism, where the natures are in things and in minds. I do believe, like Aquinas, that the universals exist in God(exist in a way, since He is simple), but i need to find a way to argue to this conclusion(mostly to find a way to save the Augustinian Proof).<br /><br />"Also, could you elaborate on why you think Craig's moral argument does not work if one rejects the existence of natures and essences?"<br /><br />On the contrary, Craig argument only works if you don't believe in objective natures. That is what i said before: <br /><br />"if you do believe in natures or essences, Craig Moral Argument and critique of the lack of values on Atheism just fails"<br /><br />Craig argument first premise is something like "if there is no God there are no objective values and duties", if you do believe in some sort of realism about universals, you can get something like natural law and defend that this premise is false. Craig denial of morality and value in atheism only works if the atheist don't believe in formal and final casuality(like most do today).<br /><br />I have no problem with Craig view on the ontology of language, is just that his anti-realism is false.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83406874843228774382020-04-01T19:36:23.632-07:002020-04-01T19:36:23.632-07:00Unknown,
"The fact that he continues to post ...Unknown,<br />"The fact that he continues to post here demonstrates what a lowlife he is."<br />Apparently you and I have differing value systems.<br /><br />Clearly, I value sound rational arguments.<br />You value wild personal attacks containing no rational arguments whatever.<br /><br />You said I have a "high school freshman-level grasp of physics".<br /><br />Above I made several assertions above wrt physics. Can you point out any errors on the merits in my actual words?<br /><br />I have found that in general the more insulting a person becomes the weaker the arguments the person is capable of, but that is just a general trend I have observed over time.<br /><br />It might be the case that you both make use of the ad hominem and also are capable of making actual rational arguments.<br /><br />Can you make as argument, on the merits, against my assertion that all motion is in space, and you are in space?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58212524905447865372020-04-01T14:52:04.708-07:002020-04-01T14:52:04.708-07:00@Unknown
Per Feser's request, please don'...@Unknown<br /><br />Per Feser's request, please don't feed trolls. Just ignore them. The troll in question has been banned by Feser. Any decent human being (which Stardust is not) would leave when told he was not welcome. The fact that he continues to post here demonstrates what a lowlife he is.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72932865368441589432020-04-01T14:49:52.591-07:002020-04-01T14:49:52.591-07:00@Bill...I should have replaced the word "prop...@Bill...I should have replaced the word "properties" with "attributes."Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36275873494216236572020-04-01T14:49:21.254-07:002020-04-01T14:49:21.254-07:00@Dominik
Except that Craig specifically rejects d...@Dominik<br /><br />Except that Craig specifically rejects divine simplicity and insists that there is a real essence/existence distinction in God. Moreover, he also avers that God is not identical with His properties. Sorry, but that doesn't wash.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76894634182929150712020-04-01T10:39:00.388-07:002020-04-01T10:39:00.388-07:00Thanks, Talmid. What reason might you give for thi...Thanks, Talmid. What reason might you give for thinking that "natures" and "essences" exist as objects rather than just true descriptions? Also, could you elaborate on why you think Craig's moral argument does not work if one rejects the existence of natures and essences? <br /><br />And I would just note that Craig thinks one can make objectively true statements which use universals as objects even if one rejects the existence of universals as objects that exist "out there."Tyson Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484548711122439609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10025108718505589032020-04-01T06:40:25.066-07:002020-04-01T06:40:25.066-07:00Philosopher,
Your welcome, although Dominik and Me...Philosopher,<br />Your welcome, although Dominik and Meta have very different approaches to P2 than I do, and Meta seems to have connected my words with Dominik, still, it seems the 3 of us reached the same answer for different reasons.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com