tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6549230661034550571..comments2024-03-28T07:47:38.176-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Church and Culture radio interviewEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52953102473371021072020-12-04T06:16:52.448-08:002020-12-04T06:16:52.448-08:00Talmid,
I agree regarding Zeno at least in part, ...Talmid,<br /><br />I agree regarding Zeno at least in part, and in part because we know of things like the finite sums of a series with infinite parts. Completing infinite parts in an infinitesimal time is also not a barrier.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76811766584751830242020-12-03T19:24:07.253-08:002020-12-03T19:24:07.253-08:00@One Brown
"don't necessarily agree tha...@One Brown<br /> <br />"don't necessarily agree that it true (else Zeno's paradoxes would make motion impossible),"<br /><br /> I don't think that Zeno paradoxes fail because we can complete infinities. To me, they fall because there is not really a infinite number of parts, these are only mental abstractions we form. <br /><br />The arrow paradox, for instance, has a similar problem. Time is not a bunch of instants joined together like we do on cinema or stop-motion, rather it is continous. Zeno more rationalistic method betrayed him, for he looked to much to abstractions and forgoted about the real thing. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51194655911139583232020-12-03T11:12:31.090-08:002020-12-03T11:12:31.090-08:00JoeD,
Counting cannot apply to infinitely many t...JoeD,<br /><br /><i> Counting cannot apply to infinitely many things since it works through linear finite terms which applies to any linear series,</i><br /><br />I accepted this as your definition. However, that means it has no relation to the clause that follows it.<br /><br /><i>2) That's really not that difficult to see - an infinity by nature isn't something that can be completed. </i><br /><br />I don't necessarily agree that it true (else Zeno's paradoxes would make motion impossible), but more importantly, I don't see why you think this applies to an unbounded past. What do you think is being "completed"?<br /><br /><i>You can't work through finite terms and have them apply to infinitely many members / an infinity.</i><br /><br />Why not? You keep repeating the claim over and over, but so far, you are only offering an argument from incredulity. Do you have an actual proof to offer?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1950444237406800062020-12-03T07:33:12.429-08:002020-12-03T07:33:12.429-08:00@OneBrow,
1) Wow, way to misunderstand things. Co...@OneBrow,<br /><br />1) Wow, way to misunderstand things. Counting cannot apply to infinitely many things since it works through linear finite terms which applies to any linear series, and in an infinite past there would be or could be infinitely many events or days, so the past can't be infinite.<br /><br />An eternal past by definition would entail a linear series in time, which can't be infinite.<br /><br />2) That's really not that difficult to see - an infinity by nature <b>isn't something that can be completed.</b> You can't work through finite terms and have them apply to infinitely many members / an infinity. <br /><br />An infinite past necessarily by definition means that an infinite series <b>is behind us,</b> so an infinity has passed. But that contradicts the nature of infinity which can't have been finished, counted or linearly fulfilled.<br /><br />3) Already explained above. And you again misunderstand what I said - there can be members in a time stream, just not infinitely many of them.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33959063920442262522020-12-03T05:52:21.304-08:002020-12-03T05:52:21.304-08:00JoeD,
Thank you for pointing out why a definition...JoeD,<br /><br />Thank you for pointing out why a definitional argument can fail so spectacularly. If counting is inherently finite (using your definition), than it can not be used to described an unending past at all, so an attempt to use it to refute an unending past is doomed to failure.<br /><br />I'm still waiting for you to justify 2). Repetition is not proof. I'm still waiting for you to justify the "impossible" part of 3).<br /><br />I'm not aware of any knots. I find it odd that you agree with me that there are no "members" to the time stream, and yet have convinced yourself that I made that error. I agree time passes and is linear. Now, what's the proof for it not to extend backwards without limit?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51202283521309060282020-12-03T00:16:21.790-08:002020-12-03T00:16:21.790-08:00@OneBrow,
1) Definitional arguments (and conclusi...@OneBrow,<br /><br />1) Definitional arguments (and conclusions derived thereof) are a legitimate form of argument, in case you didn't know. And again, the reason counting is brought up isn't because there must be a starting point between infinity and now, but precisely because counting is inherently finite and can't have encompassed infinitely many terms.<br /><br />2) Except that's what's required by an infinite past - an infinite amount of time or days has in fact passed or been finished. But an infinity of things can't have passed by nature, so an infinite past is impossible.<br /><br />3) Doesn't matter if there's no counting - in an infinite past it's perfectly possible to count or to have a concrete linear series working through each day. Which is impossible, so an infinite past is impossible. You also don't have to be an object to pass or be linear - as time clearly does.<br /><br />It seems you're just tying yourself in knots with all the casual dismissals you're making just to avoid the argument.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69913762124885652532020-12-02T19:26:34.504-08:002020-12-02T19:26:34.504-08:00A building can't choose to fail or not fail, s...A building can't choose to fail or not fail, so this comparison makes no sense. <br /><br />Sure, in a way you are sinning on the way you are because God, if He exists, created you. In the same way, you are sinning on the way you are because your parents got together. In the same way, you are sinning on the way you are because some friend in fourth grade invited you to play(If he did not your life would be a diferent one, this example is less clear). That is all true.<br /><br />Does all that takes away the fact that you can refuse to sin and live a virtuous life? Is God, fate, destiny or anything like that altering your brain to make you incapable of living the good life? No.<br /><br />As Satre would say, you are free to do it or not. Trying to shift the blame to God or determinism etc is bad faith and nothing else. No one can decide for you what to do, only yourself.<br /><br /> You can write what you want, we both know that you can do it if you try. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23327344108379543352020-12-02T13:49:19.683-08:002020-12-02T13:49:19.683-08:00JoeD,
I'm not looking for anything peer-revie...JoeD,<br /><br />I'm not looking for anything peer-reviewed, just something that doesn't try to defeat the notion by definition (to count assumes a starting place where the counting begins).<br /><br /><i>Passing is relevant to finite sets or terms, while infinity isn't something that can in any way have been finished or perfected - that's just incoherent.</i><br /><br />I'm not talking about finishing or perfecting anything, and infinitely is not an object "can pass" (neither it time, for that matter).<br /><br />There are no "members" to the passing time stream. There is no counting. Simplicity is great, but when one simplifies to the point that one distorts, you can lose the thread.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11478440164238381492020-12-02T12:16:39.922-08:002020-12-02T12:16:39.922-08:00@OneBrow,
Oh, don't be a snob. Appealing to p...@OneBrow,<br /><br />Oh, don't be a snob. Appealing to peer-review or complaining about simplicity of intuition won't get you any points.<br /><br />It's not that hard to see why infinitely many terms can't pass - because infinity isn't something that can pass in its entirety. Passing is relevant to finite sets or terms, while infinity isn't something that can in any way have been finished or perfected - that's just incoherent.<br /><br />An infinity can't have passed because passing requires that it has applied to infinitely many members - which is analogous to saying you've counted an entire infinity because you're saying you linearly applied something to infinitely many members.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91257378417077868602020-12-02T11:28:16.936-08:002020-12-02T11:28:16.936-08:00JoeD,
I saw this point:
Basically, an infinite p...JoeD,<br /><br />I saw this point:<br /><br /><i>Basically, an infinite past where an infinity of days has passed is impossible for similar (though not the same) reasons as to why it's impossible to count to infinity - it would imply that an infinity (or infinitely many terms) has passed which is impossible.</i><br /><br />To which I would question why it is impossible for infinitely many terms to have passed.<br /><br />Perhaps there is some sort of proof lyung around I have not been exposed to, that is, something a little more sophisticated and knowledgeable than 'you can't count from infinity to 0'. I would be curious to see it.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31096111429917866002020-12-02T06:25:07.536-08:002020-12-02T06:25:07.536-08:00"why do you claim it is impossible that time ..."why do you claim it is impossible that time stretches back in an unbounded fashion"<br /><br />The future time is unbounded and will always be finite with respect to now.<br /><br />There is no upper limit on future time, and so future time is unbounded, but will never be infinite. One cannot count up to infinity. There is no upper limit on the number of future seconds to come, but the number of future seconds will never count up to infinity.<br /><br />Infinity is not a number, it is a concept. No real process can progress to infinity. To think that there can be a real process that progresses to infinity is to misunderstand the concept of infinity as opposed to unbounded counting or progressing.<br /><br />The same is true about the past.<br /><br />An infinite past time is just as irrational as an infinite future time.<br /><br />Something from nothing is also irrational.<br /><br />That is why the origin of existence remains a mystery, an unsolved riddle.<br /><br />The speculation of god does nothing to solve that riddle. No real being can rationally do what can't be done. All the same questions apply to any speculated god, and thus there is no speculated god that solves the problem of this ancient riddle, the irrationality of both and infinite past time, as well as the irrationality of something from nothing.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4808948723488813472020-12-02T06:11:41.609-08:002020-12-02T06:11:41.609-08:00@One Brow,
I already gave some reasons, at least ...@One Brow,<br /><br />I already gave some reasons, at least implicitly. You keep asking as if I haven't given any reason at all, instead of just trying to tackle the arguments and show why they are wrong.<br /><br />As for the rest - this just begs the question of possibility. If a linear process can't apply to infinitely many terms, then not even God could accomplish this like that because it's logically impossible.<br /><br />Counting is accomplished through finite terms, and finite terms by themselves can never become infinite. An eternal past requires a truly infinite amount of time behind it, not just looking forward to infinity without actually having passed it like counting forwards.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41981607934954798782020-12-02T06:00:37.897-08:002020-12-02T06:00:37.897-08:00JoeD,
While "count to infinity" is mean...JoeD,<br /><br />While "count to infinity" is meaningless, the only thing preventing a person from reciting every counting number is the finite time of their lifespan, and the inability to use infinitesimal units of time within which to count numbers.. Infinity is an actual concept that is different from the unboundedness of the real number line. Such a thing would not be beyond the reach of a putative omniscient, omnipotent deity, so it is not impossible.<br /><br />So, again, why do you claim it is impossible that time stretches back in an unbounded fashion?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84211288470868500432020-12-02T05:35:13.588-08:002020-12-02T05:35:13.588-08:00Talmid,
" But now they have no excuse for the...Talmid,<br />" But now they have no excuse for their sin"<br /><br />God has no excuse for my sin.<br /><br />My sin is god's fault, because, you say, god is omniscient, omnipotent, has free will, and is the creator of all other than itself. <br /><br />God knew, you say, every detail of the universe for all time to come before he even created the universe in the beginning.<br /><br />Therefore, god knew I would act according to my nature, and god created my nature, and god could have created me otherwise, so it is gods fault I fell, just as it is the fault of a negligent building constructor who knew the building would fall due to its weak structure, and then the building fell.<br /><br />You want to blame the building for falling. You are blaming the victim.<br /><br />The perpetrator is god. All the sin of the world is gods fault because he created everything, he could have created otherwise, he freely chose with malice of foresight to create sin, so god is to blame, not me or you or any human being.<br /><br />If the glory belongs to god so does the blame.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43834236262121149122020-12-02T00:46:46.221-08:002020-12-02T00:46:46.221-08:001) For similar reasons as to why you can't cou...1) For similar reasons as to why you can't count to infinity - a linear process can't apply to infinitely many members by nature.<br /><br />Also, it's more often atheists who parrot the house of bricks they built to resist claims they don't like. But that's beyond me.<br /><br />2) I guess I should've been more precise - it's not that there was a starting point, but that every single member of an infinity has been the subject of a linear process of counting.<br /><br />Which, again, is impossible.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33010057828341585452020-12-01T20:35:28.092-08:002020-12-01T20:35:28.092-08:00@Unknown
"Those who, through no fault of the...@Unknown<br /><br />"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"<br /><br />Which is just the same as saying: <br />"They would not be guilty if I had not come and spoken to them. But now they have no excuse for their sin."<br />(John 15:22).<br /><br />Maybe "the system" is injust but the Judge is not, so do not despair! no one will be screwed by geography or history!<br /><br />You can give a read on the catholic view of salvation if you want: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm<br /><br />I'am offering it to you because you seems to have a twisted idea of how it works. You say:<br /><br />" An omnipotent being might be expected to implement a vastly fairer system than the acceptance of certain purported theological truths revolving around Jesus"<br /><br />Do you believe that salvation is like passing on a oral test? Not really, faith alone is a dead faith! What saves is union with God by grace where He transforms you by the power of the Holy Spirit and adopts you as His spiritual child. <br /><br />Think of it like that: you heard there is this person that loves you but you do not know how the person is, you guys were never introduced. It turns out though that you and this person pick up the same bus everyday and actually you guys talked a lot before. So, even if you do not know that person on a way, you guys are friends! <br /><br />This probably is like how the situation would be with unbelievers. Some probably have some union with the Holy Spirit that they themselves do not know. I tell you: they will be pretty suprised someday!<br /><br />I mean, i suppose that seeing this talk about this God that wants all to be faithful while not being faithful is pretty weird, but you should give it a shot. Edward essay for instance is pretty cool, if you look at the book you can read it online. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26377627157205610412020-12-01T14:03:22.835-08:002020-12-01T14:03:22.835-08:00 Yes, this Cantus loon probably. Yes, this Cantus loon probably.FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36028473757837605742020-12-01T13:45:45.504-08:002020-12-01T13:45:45.504-08:00 Yes JoeD, with respect to your first paragraph, w... Yes JoeD, with respect to your first paragraph, why ( other than simple repetition of a learned formula ) do you think this is impossible?<br /><br /> With respect to your second, infinity has not been counted at all, as on a temporally unbound past there was no starting point to count from. We are still adding years, even though per hypothesis there are an infinite number of them in the past,but so what? As years are added the number of years in the past remains ......infinite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23829114558380533232020-12-01T11:35:59.992-08:002020-12-01T11:35:59.992-08:00JoeD,
Why do you think that is impossible?JoeD,<br /><br />Why do you think that is impossible?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4115607895752544132020-12-01T06:25:13.602-08:002020-12-01T06:25:13.602-08:00@Anon,
Except this would mean a linear series app...@Anon,<br /><br />Except this would mean a linear series applied concretely to an infinite amount of steps, which is impossible.<br /><br />It's not that things started at a point an infinite time ago - among other things, it means an infinity has been finished or counted, which is impossible.<br /><br />JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-736683856167769352020-11-30T23:00:04.848-08:002020-11-30T23:00:04.848-08:00Talmid 7.40pm
Regarding your final paragraph, th... Talmid 7.40pm<br /><br /> Regarding your final paragraph, this only goes to show the extreme contingencies of life, and how unfair THE SYSTEM is with regards to salvation. An omnipotent being might be expected to implement a vastly fairer system than the acceptance of certain purported theological truths revolving around Jesus. I appreciate of course that 'solutions' have been proposed to address this problem - eg Molinism, the transworld depravity of unbelievers in the Christian world view etc - but forgive me for observing that they are not exactly convincing!FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90758810414731815752020-11-30T19:40:26.100-08:002020-11-30T19:40:26.100-08:00Thanks for the tip! I did google the book and Ed e...Thanks for the tip! I did google the book and Ed essay can be read online. <br /><br />Pretty cool history. Dr. Feser case fits exactly with this Blessed Fulton Sheen quote: There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”<br /><br />And to think this man only started this path because his classes where boring :) Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32074292609694322152020-11-29T21:10:04.320-08:002020-11-29T21:10:04.320-08:00Read his essay in the book Faith and Reason. Read his essay in the book Faith and Reason. Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54981027345643267342020-11-29T09:05:07.070-08:002020-11-29T09:05:07.070-08:00Quite right. Good response. The claim that Aristot...Quite right. Good response. The claim that Aristotelian physics is an approximation to Newtonian mechanics, in the same technical way in which the latter is an approxion to Einsteinian relativity- despite not even being expressed in mathematical language - is utterly bizarre. This 'Fred' is obviously scientifically very limited, hence his need to appeal to authority and insult you along the way. FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81678283248162843212020-11-29T08:53:12.617-08:002020-11-29T08:53:12.617-08:00Fred,
“there is a very good summary of it here: ht...Fred,<br />“there is a very good summary of it here: https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/what-aristotle-got-right/”<br />Luke Barnes did a good job of showing what a dishonest writer Lawrence Krauss is. He has enough physics background that more accomplished physicists will at least attend and listen, skeptically, to Barnes. But his arguments are ultimately fallacious and unconvincing.<br /><br />“Aristotelian physics is a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics”<br />Not it isn’t. Newton does not reduce to 4 causes, 4 sorts of change, 2 sorts of series, or teleology.<br /><br />Aristotle didn’t even write equations for Newton to reduce to. All Aristotle did was write philosophical words about his observations, and those words turn out to be wrong in nearly every respect.<br /><br />“in the same technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein’s theory.”<br />Einstein’s equations reduce to Newton’s equations when velocity goes to zero. There is no analogous reduction from Newton to Aristotle at least because Aristotle didn’t write equations at all, so there is nothing by Aristotle for Newton to reduce to.<br /><br />“Aristotle’s physics is not, in fact, faulty in the domain for which it is intended”<br />Yes it is. The domain it is intended is to accurately describe how the universe works in order to reason back to a first mover. In that intended domain Aristotle fails.<br /><br />“I suppose you, being The Great and Powerful StardustyPsyche, know a lot more about physics than the mere founder of quantum loop gravity theory.”<br />Argument from authority. Being an expert on quantum loop gravity theory does not make one necessarily correct generally.<br /><br />Aristotle reasoned back to a first mover based on his fundamental errors. Aristotle failed to provide a realistic theory.<br /><br />The reasons people followed Aristotle for so long are that his descriptions somewhat describe our day to day perceptions of the immediate world around us, and people generally did not do the experiments needed to show that Aristotle was fundamentally wrong.<br /><br />Once people like Copernicus and Galileo started using careful observations, experiments, accurate instruments, and real mathematical calculations we found out that Aristotle had been very wrong all along, and the universe does not work the way simple naked eye observation tends to indicate.<br /><br />Since that time the logical errors and false premises of the arguments for a first mover have been identified so all reasonable people stopped believing in that ancient misapprehension about how the universe came to be. <br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com