tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post599966002017326435..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Smith and divine eternityEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger199125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34662483588629931442022-08-11T10:46:22.848-07:002022-08-11T10:46:22.848-07:00@One Brow:
And yet Darwinism keeps being a religi...@One Brow:<br /><br />And yet Darwinism keeps being a religion/ creative myth for the intellectually stumped.UncommonDescentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62379571588449594892021-03-10T05:52:18.964-08:002021-03-10T05:52:18.964-08:00Mister Geocon,
Just a word to the wise: referrin...Mister Geocon,<br /><br />Just a word to the wise: referring to "Darwinian evolution" makes you sound positively unintellectual. Evolutionary theory has moved well past Darwin.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53802805188136569082021-03-10T05:15:28.183-08:002021-03-10T05:15:28.183-08:00Talmid
God, being the primary cause of P's fr...Talmid<br /><br />God, being the primary cause of P's free will decision to choose A or B cannot possibly know that P chooses B because He is not the cause of P's choice of B.<br />If Aquinas thinks otherwise, Aquinas is wrong.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69030518390596573452021-03-09T19:08:22.913-08:002021-03-09T19:08:22.913-08:00That is were we disagree, i guess :)That is were we disagree, i guess :)Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-396158441573363832021-03-09T18:53:56.282-08:002021-03-09T18:53:56.282-08:00Hi Mister Geocon,
I'm curious. Where did you ...Hi Mister Geocon,<br /><br />I'm curious. Where did you find this information that says that atheists tend to have mental problems and who says this?Mysterious Bronynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83307265854640774072021-03-08T22:03:19.019-08:002021-03-08T22:03:19.019-08:00Talmid
But God cannot possibly know our free choi...Talmid<br /><br />But God cannot possibly know our free choices just by keeping us in being.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48992037881270778012021-03-08T20:32:17.225-08:002021-03-08T20:32:17.225-08:00@Vincient
>May I suggest that we ask Ed to adj...@Vincient<br /><br />>May I suggest that we ask Ed to adjudicate between us, and tell us which of us is reading him aright? Ed? Hello?<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />@Ficino<br /><br />>Feser's "similarly" gives us a relation of similarity between two relations: Rowling to characters and God to creatures. Feser did not say something like "In the same way, God..." So I think your insertion of the sign = in your representation of Feser is a mistake.<br /><br />What was that line Tony Stark said to Bruce Banner in the first Avengers movie specifically the Bridge scene? Ah yes...."At last somebody who speaks English!"<br /><br />Thanks buddy.:-)<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81587997660819858852021-03-08T19:12:55.749-08:002021-03-08T19:12:55.749-08:00@Walter
"I am merely assuming that to know t...@Walter<br /><br />"I am merely assuming that to know the actual choice God would have to be the cause of the actual choice, that is, in order to know that I choose X, God has to cause my choice of X."<br /><br />Remember the doctrine of analogy. When we say that created beings cause things we are saying in a sense(secundary casuality) and when we say that God cause things we are saying in a diferent sense(primary casuality). <br /><br />So God keeping things in being is what we mean by "causing" here, nothing more. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23516874021813308072021-03-08T06:35:25.732-08:002021-03-08T06:35:25.732-08:00@ Vincent Torley and Son of Ya'Kov,
Vincent, ...@ Vincent Torley and Son of Ya'Kov, <br />Vincent, I have found much of value over the years in what you write, but I think you misconstrue Feser here. Feser's "similarly" gives us a relation of similarity between two relations: Rowling to characters and God to creatures. Feser did not say something like "In the same way, God..." So I think your insertion of the sign = in your representation of Feser is a mistake.<br /><br />BTW interesting to learn that perhaps it was Cajetan who formulated the term, "analogy of attribution." When Aquinas uses the time-honored example of healthy animal, healthy drink and healthy urine, that comes from Aristotle's discussions of pros hen predication, what Gwil Owen called "focal meaning." It seems to me that causality is not at the center of the expl of pros hen predication, since it takes a lot of footwork to establish that the relevant difference betw the way "healthy" is predicated of "animal" and the way it's predicated of "drink" or "urine" is that the primary predicate CAUSES the secondary predications. An animal's health doesn't cause a drink or urine to be healthy on any straightforward sense of "cause." But maybe Cajetan went into this example, since it recurs in Aquinas simply under the rubric of predication "analogice."ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34972840279090164602021-03-08T02:42:02.670-08:002021-03-08T02:42:02.670-08:00I should add that my previous answer of causation ...I should add that my previous answer of causation as if it was a series is clearly an oversimplification. God *is causing* us to have free will. I won’t pretend to know anything about what that really means, where it starts and ends, but it does give us a significant degree of freedom in terms of us being causal agents in our own right.Simon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967831833822936845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21144847047357613212021-03-08T02:26:26.743-08:002021-03-08T02:26:26.743-08:00Walter, yes to me sometimes the likes of Thomism b...Walter, yes to me sometimes the likes of Thomism becomes like an abstraction that’s treated as the thing itself. God’s being that sustains the being of all things is far more than a cause. It’s transcendent and immanent, the ocean us fish are part of and swim in without even knowing it’s there.<br /><br />Remember that Aquinas burnt his books once he had a direct taste of the reality beyond the conception...Simon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967831833822936845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30618958636434112762021-03-08T01:19:10.606-08:002021-03-08T01:19:10.606-08:00Simon
Yes, but the problem is that if God, as Fes...Simon<br /><br />Yes, but the problem is that if God, as Feser and Talmid seem to hold, only knows things by virtue of being their cause, He can only know that I have free will and He cannot know which choice I make/made/will make because He does not cause that choice.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15965265997826449142021-03-08T00:55:33.737-08:002021-03-08T00:55:33.737-08:00Yes apologies, I just got an email update containi...Yes apologies, I just got an email update containing your reply out context.<br /><br />This idea of dual levels of causation seems a bit confused. God caused me to have free will, I use free will to cause other stuff. There, much easier :)Simon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967831833822936845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75612258681001665722021-03-08T00:32:47.484-08:002021-03-08T00:32:47.484-08:00Simon
Before you reply I advise you to read what ...Simon<br /><br />Before you reply I advise you to read what this discussion between Talmid and me is actually about.<br />A hint: <i>I</i> am not claiming that in order for God to know my choice, he would have to cause it but <i>Talmid and Feser </i> are.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54168860015537061982021-03-07T23:28:41.014-08:002021-03-07T23:28:41.014-08:00That makes no sense at all. If I have a way of fin...That makes no sense at all. If I have a way of finding out what you had for lunch yesterday, am I the cause of your choice of lunch?<br /><br />I think the only explanation for your view is that you think god has the same relationship with time that we do, which would of course be ridiculous. Also I’m curious whose ‘now’ you think he is tied to? Simon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967831833822936845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32637804401630781352021-03-07T22:57:17.756-08:002021-03-07T22:57:17.756-08:00I am merely assuming that to know the actual choic...I am merely assuming that to know the actual choice God would have to be the cause of the actual choice, that is, in order to know that I choose X, God has to cause my choice of X.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43340567431004471542021-03-07T20:19:22.934-08:002021-03-07T20:19:22.934-08:00@Machinephilosophy
As a fan of transcendental ana...@Machinephilosophy<br /><br />As a fan of transcendental analysis in general, i find your arguments pretty interesting*, what do you think of St. Augustine eternal truths argument? I believe that Dr. Feser use it in a more classical aproach, but some like Jay Dyer use transcendental arguments that are pretty similar. <br /><br />thought* i don't know if i understand they well or not. They let me a bit suspicious of there being a flaw in they, but i can't see where or if there really is one. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6304757254932644892021-03-07T20:01:34.844-08:002021-03-07T20:01:34.844-08:00You are assuming here that to know the choice God ...You are assuming here that to know the choice God would have to be the secundary cause of it. This will not be much persuasive with thomists, for on Aquinas view God being the primary cause is enough. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40270267345844543072021-03-07T13:23:00.137-08:002021-03-07T13:23:00.137-08:00Nor does conditional implication. But that doesn&#...Nor does conditional implication. But that doesn't seem to prevent using it to adjudicate existence claims.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27154815950636479152021-03-07T12:07:51.810-08:002021-03-07T12:07:51.810-08:00Hi Ben
Kai Nielsen's Ethics Without God and G...Hi Ben<br /><br />Kai Nielsen's <i>Ethics Without God</i> and George Hamilton Smith's <i>Atheism: The Case Against God</i> are the only books I know of that have substantial arguments against theism.<br /><br />But both theists and atheists are ignoring the elephant in the room: the crypto-theistic nature of reason itself.<br /><br />Over <i><b>half a century</b></i> has gone by and there is <b><i>still</i></b> no comprehensive analysis of either work.<br /><br />And even though I have great respect for J. P. Moreland (and have learned a lot from his writings), his sole response to Nielsen's argument in a live debate sums up why theistic philosophy has been so feckless:<br /><br />"So what?"<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61898661171382460692021-03-07T09:10:10.113-08:002021-03-07T09:10:10.113-08:00Tony,
So, are you saying is that is not that they...Tony,<br /><br />So, are you saying is that is not that they thought a lack of religious belief was bad, but rather that having religious belief was good? Is this using a definition of 'bad' that is not mere 'absence of good'?<br /><br />You may this difficult to accept, but that re-wording of the sentiment does not inculcate a feeling that they think people like me should be Americans.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37083258529362319852021-03-07T05:06:32.930-08:002021-03-07T05:06:32.930-08:00Hi Son of Ya'Kov,
May I suggest that we ask E...Hi Son of Ya'Kov,<br /><br />May I suggest that we ask Ed to adjudicate between us, and tell us which of us is reading him aright? Ed? Hello?<br />Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9727461417224641622021-03-07T00:15:38.295-08:002021-03-07T00:15:38.295-08:00No, that's not all He needs. He needs to have ...No, that's not all He needs. He needs to have knowledge of the actual choice I make and that is impossible if He only knows things by causing them because he doesn't cause my actual choice.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48091314802309253672021-03-06T19:21:13.630-08:002021-03-06T19:21:13.630-08:00I don't see how that follows. God is the prima...I don't see how that follows. God is the primary cause of free acts by keeping the one who wills in being, and that is all He needs. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23517020509072361852021-03-06T14:46:01.907-08:002021-03-06T14:46:01.907-08:00The point wasn't that they held atheists in l...The point wasn't that they held atheists <i>in low esteem</i>, it was that they held religion as providing something to the common weal that atheism could not provide to it, viz. stability in the virtues necessary for the common weal. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.com