tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7224687233811659251..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: So you think you understand the cosmological argument?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger512125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90693434655453623232022-01-05T19:18:04.410-08:002022-01-05T19:18:04.410-08:00Everything observed "within* the universe tha...Everything observed "within* the universe that began to exist has a cause. I have never read Feser, Lane Craig, or anyone else defeat this objection.<br /><br />In any matter, the arguments are aimed to *persuade*. Sophisticated speculation only. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4807846551210866372020-12-13T23:04:36.922-08:002020-12-13T23:04:36.922-08:00It went to this cover:
https://www.comics.org/iss...It went to this cover:<br /><br />https://www.comics.org/issue/364600/cover/4/Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54132370792770930692020-12-13T17:54:53.449-08:002020-12-13T17:54:53.449-08:00Hello everyone,
When Dr. Feser says "I’ll le...Hello everyone,<br /><br />When Dr. Feser says "I’ll let Mr. Natural tell us what it means. " That hyperlink is broken. Does anyone know the where the hyperlink was supposed to take you? Thank you! Mr.ThomasAbbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03229009468735416887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7108306140602219272020-10-04T14:14:57.090-07:002020-10-04T14:14:57.090-07:00Majestic Mr. Feser!<i> Majestic </i> Mr. Feser!UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59698695300604535902019-02-17T08:23:15.474-08:002019-02-17T08:23:15.474-08:00What a peculiar blog! What a juxtaposition: You’ve...What a peculiar blog! What a juxtaposition: You’ve managed to surprise me and offer something I haven’t seen in a long time—complex, interesting writing that is genuinely thought-provoking, instead of smoke-and-mirrors self-delusion of most online theistic philosophy – and then at the same time the comments are filled with exactly such predictable empty nonsense. <br /><br />It’s funny getting to read most in one place. <br /><br />The only thing notable about your commentors is they seem to think that because they’re here reading you, they are smarter than everybody else, and they aren’t afraid to say it. Which isn’t really surprising, given the tenor of this blog as a whole. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody fill the HEADER of their own blog with quotes about how damn smart they are. Most people who are genuinely brilliant just write smart things, and let people read; they don’t have to first TELL us how smart they are. <br /><br />The god you describe here, of course, is nothing like the god which traditional Christianity has taught for the past 2,000 years. I don’t care if the Christian philosophers thought differently; this is not the god that was preached from the pulpit, discussed in the pews, or prayed to by the populace. It’s nothing more than attempt to wed a high-concept abstract idea to a very low-concept anthropomorphic superstition. <br /><br />I have many other objections, but with this great number of comments I suspect they’ve all been said before better than I could. Cheers! ThePhyseterhttp://thephyseter.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70650572586426198422018-11-14T13:17:02.569-08:002018-11-14T13:17:02.569-08:00That is the sleight of hand. Build a bunch of str...That is the sleight of hand. Build a bunch of straw men using utterances used by unknown people in debates.<br /><br />The Kalam argument most certainly assumes that the universe had a beginning. But Feser handwaves that away. He claims that it does not just assume it, but it establishes it. Note that "the universe had a beginning" is at least a quasi-scientific claim, and no way Kalam established it.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Form_of_the_argument<br /><br />Pretty clear in 2. that the form that WLC uses most definitely assumes it. It is not established by the argument.<br /><br />Things work better when you destroy straw men, but not to prove an argumentdisqus_sk_userhttp://cultofsundries.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68807104998056712682018-10-23T18:42:38.336-07:002018-10-23T18:42:38.336-07:00There are several forms of the argument so it woul...There are several forms of the argument so it would take too long; it would take too long even to present one form of the argument completely.<br />I suggest you read William Lane Craig's 1977 PhD Thesis (available free on the internet) which explains the main versions of the argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16283912007084261652018-02-27T19:22:15.228-08:002018-02-27T19:22:15.228-08:00"what comes into existence has a cause"
..."what comes into existence has a cause"<br /><br />It looks like everything stems from this premise. And the irony is he thinks this is better than the traditional "everything has a cause so there must be a first cause." but it's the same type of argument, even less witty! NEITHER statement hold any more truth than me saying "Everything that exists has no cause." It's fairy dust. It's a statement based completely on faith, hopes and dreams, fairy dust, unicorns, miracle whip, what the French call a certain, 'I don't know what'. It has no inherent truth and is funnily actually intellectually dishonest. It's good for philosophy so we can deconstruct it but it's just so completely inept!ptykozoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18036191256507968314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19887398787494599452018-02-27T18:45:26.749-08:002018-02-27T18:45:26.749-08:00"Your comment will be visible after approval...."Your comment will be visible after approval."<br />Moderating a philosophy discussion.<br />The irony.ptykozoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18036191256507968314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86710634280298203022018-02-27T18:44:40.380-08:002018-02-27T18:44:40.380-08:00Alan Watts.Alan Watts.ptykozoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18036191256507968314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80950870669145803222018-01-16T03:25:59.321-08:002018-01-16T03:25:59.321-08:00I had somebody tell me today that the argument fro...I had somebody tell me today that the argument from motion fails because we can't prove that potency is ALWAYS reduced to act by act... and they're dead serious about it. lamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425677084652483263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17728109597007582532017-12-24T09:19:12.134-08:002017-12-24T09:19:12.134-08:00In all these years, it never occured to you to rea...In all these years, it never occured to you to read the works of an actual philosopher of religion?Matjaž Horvathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299644309277886201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-530127606430209222017-08-15T06:05:15.478-07:002017-08-15T06:05:15.478-07:00My overarching concern with this rebuttal to athei...My overarching concern with this rebuttal to atheist's responses to the Cosmological Argument, is that Feser does not acknowledge what exactly the atheists ARE responding to. OK, so it's not his highly-advanced, several-hundred-page epic version of the CA, but so what? I'm an atheist who has debated religion for years, and I've never ever seen a complex or deeply argued version of the CA of any kind. Those simplistic responses that Feser doesn't like? They're perfectly valid responses to what many theists and apologists ARE presenting in debates and apologias everywhere. If Feser has a bone to pick, it should be with his fellow theists, religious philosophers and apologists for failing themselves to properly present Aquinas' original arguments.Graham Poundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31194823340740455152017-08-15T05:56:27.548-07:002017-08-15T05:56:27.548-07:00(2) and (3) of your elimination of free will are i...(2) and (3) of your elimination of free will are incorrect... (2) suggests physical laws are *based* are either stochastic or determinstic, yet science posits neither claim. Laws are how things work, the resultant behaviours, including complex emergent behaviours of complex systems, may well be stochastic, but that doesn't imply the laws themselves are such. Likewise, systems governed by laws may behave deterministically, but that doesn't mean the laws themselves are. In general, the observable behaviour of a phystical system does not tell us that the governing laws have either property. (3) is an if statement... what justifies the assumption? It begs the question of whether human minds can make 'rational' decisions. Yes they can, btw, as can computer programs. I'm aware of no evidence that the mind has outputs that can neither be deterministic nor stochasti nor dependent on any sub-process, system or law of either type. That remains entirely to be demonstrated!<br /><br />Who's denying (4)? It's not controversial, is it?<br /><br />You just can't reach (5) because (2) is false and (3) is assumed, undemonstrated and contrary to observed reality (but not, per se, offered as impossible)<br /><br />Your following two arguments are equally fallacious, fwiw, for broadly similar reasons.Graham Poundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86372498366640742882017-07-31T06:36:57.411-07:002017-07-31T06:36:57.411-07:00Well this was interesting. I kind of want to read ...Well this was interesting. I kind of want to read "The Last Superstition."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14741368845114234745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20634998300094654102017-05-04T23:23:03.076-07:002017-05-04T23:23:03.076-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche:... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: First one quotes the argument made, then provides supporting arguments or counter arguments according to the viewpoint of the reviewer.<br />" Of course, a review might include those things, "<br />Which makes quoting Feser fair use and you just an excuse maker.<br /><br /><br />" Huh, I don't know whether you've never seen an actual blizzard, "<br />Yes, I have been in real blizzards and reading Feser is metaphorically a blizzard of meandering words.<br /><br />" If exact citations including functioning hyperlinks are too "ill-defined" "<br />You provided no hyperlinks to the text containing your arguments. "Go read a book" is a particularly weak form of argument.<br /><br />" So you judge the truth of an argument by how fast I can type? "<br />In part, yes. If you can't figure out how to make your point in less than hours you do not know what you are talking about.<br /><br />For example<br />Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the text where Feser supposedly demonstrates " that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist."<br /><br />" No, I wouldn't be that kind. "<br /><br />SP Can you summarize it in your own words?<br />" Of course I can."<br />SP Very well then, please do so here now.<br /> April 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM<br /><br />So, in 18 days, with hundreds of words typed by you, still no summary you claim to be able to produce.<br /><br />You have many excuses, copyright, time, typing speed etc. Yet no actual content on the subject of the OP a demonstration " that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist."<br /><br />You and Feser share that trait, long meandering off-topic assertions, yet no actual demonstration of the claim at hand.<br /><br />I say Feser argues in the form of defining god into existence. Both you and Feser have failed to demonstrate otherwise, your only response being "go read a book", since you have no demonstrated capacity to actually make a sound argument as to why god must exist.<br /><br /><br /> April 29, 2017 at 2:58 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31565555360822197162017-04-29T02:58:35.005-07:002017-04-29T02:58:35.005-07:00Stardusty Psyche: First one quotes the argument ma...Stardusty Psyche: <i>First one quotes the argument made, then provides supporting arguments or counter arguments according to the viewpoint of the reviewer.</i><br /><br />No, that's a <i>summary</i> and a <i>response</i>, not a <i>review</i>. Of course, a review might include those things, but they are not constitutive. But it doesn't matter anyway: when you don't understand an argument or its philosophical background, you need <i>more</i> explanation, not a summary.<br /><br /><i>The metaphor refers to putting out a blizzard of words to conceal the lack of a valid argument.</i><br /><br />Huh, I don't know whether you've never seen an actual blizzard, or you just haven't read a book. I can assure you that folks in the midwest know how to read, and here in the civilised world, <i>reading books</i> is something we do on a regular basis in order to <i>learn things</i>. You should try it some time, it's not nearly as scary as you think!<br /><br /><i>Oh yes, the refuge of the theistic shell game "I don't have the answer but you are wrong because the answer is over there (pointing vaguely into some ill defined location).</i><br /><br />If exact citations including functioning hyperlinks are too "ill-defined" for you, maybe reading a book really would be too scary for you.<br /><br /><i>If it takes you hours you do not have a valid argument,</i><br /><br />So you judge the truth of an argument by how fast I can type? I gotta admit, I did not expect that, even from you.<br /><br /><i>I don't need hours and hours and thousands of words to make an argument, </i><br /><br />...because you skip past all those time-wasting snow-jobs like "logic" and "evidence", we know, we know!<br /><br /><i>You lack the courage and fortitude to come out of your safe space and engage with those who disagree with you and are capable of enumerating your errors.</i><br /><br />Now that's not really fair. Just because <i>you're</i> incapable of enumerating my errors doesn't mean I don't argue with <i>other</i> people who know what they're talking about.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7000622559814722732017-04-23T10:50:17.754-07:002017-04-23T10:50:17.754-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
" No it isn&#... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br />" No it isn't. Now you are really desperate for any excuse, obviously. Quoting a book for review is fair use.<br /><br />" You didn't ask for a review, silly. Don't you know the difference?"<br />A review of the reasoning of an argument is fair use. I asked for a review of his argument, yes. First one quotes the argument made, then provides supporting arguments or counter arguments according to the viewpoint of the reviewer.<br /><br />" Since it is clear you do not understand any of the metaphysical background necessary to comprehend Feser's argument, I would have to reproduce entire chapters of the book,"<br />That is what folks in the Midwest call a "snow job". The metaphor refers to putting out a blizzard of words to conceal the lack of a valid argument. The invalid argument then gets lost like a needle in a haystack, to use another folksy metaphor.<br /><br />SP Very well then, please do so here now.<br /><br />" Again, I shall politely decline because it would be a foolish use of my time — the material is already available freely on this very website,"<br />Oh yes, the refuge of the theistic shell game "I don't have the answer but you are wrong because the answer is over there (pointing vaguely into some ill defined location).<br /><br /><br />" as well as pedagogically organised in Feser's books. It makes no sense for me to spend hours copying the same text"<br />If it takes you hours you do not have a valid argument, only a blizzard of vague nonsense.<br /><br />" Either way, even if I spent the ridiculous amount of time doing that,"<br />I don't need hours and hours and thousands of words to make an argument, because I make clear, concise, rational arguments, which both you and Feser are palpably incapable of.<br /><br />" I elect to spend the time being kind to someone who will actually appreciate it."<br />You lack the courage and fortitude to come out of your safe space and engage with those who disagree with you and are capable of enumerating your errors.<br /><br />You choose to argue only in an echo chamber with those who already fundamentally agree with you. <br /><br />I am an atheist. I rarely post on atheist sites because a mutual admiration society holds no interest for me. <br /><br />You are incapable of engaging me on the merits.<br /><br /><br /> April 22, 2017 at 9:25 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90720800055130424002017-04-22T21:25:19.572-07:002017-04-22T21:25:19.572-07:00Stardusty Psyche: Your lack of kindness is unbecom...Stardusty Psyche: <i>Your lack of kindness is unbecoming of a Christian, but then, perhaps you are not one.</i><br /><br />Indeed, you do not know. Just as you apparently do not know what Christian charity is. Perhaps you are one of those people who think it means being a gullible doormat. However, Christians are supposed to spend their talents wisely, and will be called to account for every wasted hour. Therefore refusing your facetious request would in fact be the most prudent way for a Christian to handle what is most likely an unserious or unconstructive demand.<br /><br /><i>"Copying-and-pasting the stuff he's already made public would be silly,"<br />So you very apparently cannot do so because no such demonstration exists and you are just making excuses.</i><br /><br />You're welcome to your opinions, however ...idiosyncratic they may be. At least you didn't dispute the silliness of copying information that you could easily have already read if you weren't wasting time making excuses here.<br /><br /><i>I cannot read such a demonstration because none exists, as further evidenced by your failure to produce such here.</i><br /><br />Ah, yes, we already established that you mistakenly think absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Of course, I have also failed to provide any demonstration that 1+1=2, that the Earth is round, or that Charles Darwin was not an imaginary character whose figmental story was a hoax promulgated by the Devil to tempt us to disbelief. So I guess you believe all those things too! Which only reinforces my previous judgement not to waste time copying out text for some science-denying flat-earther.<br /><br /><i>No it isn't. Now you are really desperate for any excuse, obviously. Quoting a book for review is fair use.</i><br /><br />You didn't ask for a review, silly. Don't you know the difference? Since it is clear you do not understand any of the metaphysical background necessary to comprehend Feser's argument, I would have to reproduce entire chapters of the book, which would indeed be problematic as far as copyright is concerned. Not to mention unwarranted wear and tear on my typing fingers!<br /><br /><i>Very well then, please do so here now.</i><br /><br />Again, I shall politely decline because it would be a foolish use of my time — the material is already available freely on this very website, as well as pedagogically organised in Feser's books. It makes no sense for me to spend hours copying the same text into these limited comment fields because you are too lazy or too unwilling to read the site or pick up a book. In fact, if you are that unwilling, it is either a (rather embarrassing) excuse because you are afraid you won't be able to understand it, or because you just are not interested in actually learning what Feser has to say. Either way, even if I spent the ridiculous amount of time doing that, the odds of accomplishing anything constructive are vanishingly small, so I elect to spend the time being kind to someone who will actually appreciate it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86104657232871991822017-04-12T20:27:46.126-07:002017-04-12T20:27:46.126-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche:... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the text where Feser supposedly demonstrates " that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist."<br /><br />" No, I wouldn't be that kind."<br />Your lack of kindness is unbecoming of a Christian, but then, perhaps you are not one.<br /><br />" Copying-and-pasting the stuff he's already made public would be silly,"<br />So you very apparently cannot do so because no such demonstration exists and you are just making excuses.<br /><br />" you can go read it yourself."<br />I cannot read such a demonstration because none exists, as further evidenced by your failure to produce such here.<br /><br /><br />" And posting the stuff from his published books would be a violation of copyright."<br />No it isn't. Now you are really desperate for any excuse, obviously. Quoting a book for review is fair use.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Can you summarize it in your own words?<br /><br />" Of course I can."<br />Very well then, please do so here now.<br /><br /><br /> April 11, 2017 at 9:35 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40217574523959136922017-04-11T21:35:42.883-07:002017-04-11T21:35:42.883-07:00Stardusty Psyche: Perhaps you would be so kind as ...Stardusty Psyche: <i>Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the text where Feser supposedly demonstrates " that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist."</i><br /><br />No, I wouldn't be that kind. Copying-and-pasting the stuff he's already made public would be silly, you can go read it yourself. And posting the stuff from his published books would be a violation of copyright. (If you can't afford a paperback, try your local library.)<br /><br /><i>All I read were the usual fallacious theistic assertions.</i><br /><br />Aha, so you <i>didn't</i> read Feser's article. You should've read that instead.<br /><br /><i>Can you summarize it in your own words?</i><br /><br />Of course I can.<br /> <br /><i>Oh, but it's in some book someplace, right?</i><br /><br />Yes, among other places. Do you ever read books?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59785153396154204982017-04-10T21:11:28.014-07:002017-04-10T21:11:28.014-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche:... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: No he didn't. No human being has ever demonstrated that and published such demonstration into general circulation.<br /><br />" Further evidence, if any were needed, that you didn't read the article you're replying to. He even provides the references, for cryin' out loud."<br /><br />Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the text where Feser supposedly demonstrates " that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist."<br /><br />All I read were the usual fallacious theistic assertions. And he has references to more of the same? Well, that is something.<br /><br />Nope, sorry, I found no such demonstration. Can you summarize it in your own words? Can you be more specific than "in the article"?<br /><br />I did find this:<br />"I’m not going to present and defend any version of the cosmological argument here."<br />Hmmm... that sounds like Feser explicitly excluded such argument.<br /><br />Oh, but it's in some book someplace, right? Sorry, I don't get excited about people claiming to do what's never been done. But by all means, since you are so very familiar with such demonstration, please do state it.<br /><br /><br /> April 10, 2017 at 12:06 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2406693779811462962017-04-10T12:06:19.309-07:002017-04-10T12:06:19.309-07:00Stardusty Psyche: No he didn't. No human being...Stardusty Psyche: <i>No he didn't. No human being has ever demonstrated that and published such demonstration into general circulation.</i><br /><br />Further evidence, if any were needed, that you didn't read the article you're replying to. He even provides the references, for cryin' out loud.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80397394375353029932017-04-07T11:28:38.053-07:002017-04-07T11:28:38.053-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche:... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: Clearly that assertion by Feser is a special pleading definition of god as being the thing in existence that in principle does not have a cause.<br /><br />" No, it is clearly not a definition because he does not say "it IS asking..." but rather "it AMOUNTS to asking...". The term "amounts to" indicates that it is not the same thing,"<br />Feser states the definition of god as the thing that cannot in principle have had a cause. The definition is in his statement. If you don't see that I suggest you read it again and again until you comprehend that simple fact.<br /><br />"Feser has already demonstrated that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist."<br />No he didn't. No human being has ever demonstrated that and published such demonstration into general circulation. Further, even is one postulates an uncaused cause it is a non-sequitur, ad hoc, false dichotomy assertion to label that thing as god.<br /><br /><br /> April 5, 2017 at 11:39 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17890069043768638902017-04-05T23:39:07.977-07:002017-04-05T23:39:07.977-07:00Stardusty Psyche: Clearly that assertion by Feser ...Stardusty Psyche: <i>Clearly that assertion by Feser is a special pleading definition of god as being the thing in existence that in principle does not have a cause. </i><br /><br />No, it is clearly <i>not</i> a definition because he does not say "it IS asking..." but rather "it AMOUNTS to asking...". The term "amounts to" indicates that it is not the same thing, but that it leads to the same <i>result</i>, because Feser has already <i>demonstrated</i> that the in-principle-uncaused-cause must exist. Even though you didn't read (or else understand?) the article, you had to scroll past it to get to the comments, so you must have seen that it is longer than that single sentence; in fact, Feser spends several paragraphs <i>leading up to</i> that sentence which you have entirely ignored.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com