tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1193281147426516278..comments2024-03-29T08:19:26.011-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The brutal facts about Keith ParsonsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50504358520673258352019-08-09T20:49:59.739-07:002019-08-09T20:49:59.739-07:00>> Every change presupposes a preceding stat...>> Every change presupposes a preceding state of affairs that brought about the new state of affairs. But that prior state, precisely because it occurred at the given point of TIME [caps added] rather than before, immediately implies a prior state that preceded it and is its causal precursor. And so on, ad infinitum. This, says S, is the principle of sufficient reason as it occurs in causation.<br /><br />The cosmological argument tries to bring this chain of causation to an end (in the backward direction). [...] Thus, theists, in an attempt to bring the chain of causes to an end (again, in the temporally backward direction) <<<br /><br />Wrong, wrong, wrong. Feser's arguments have *nothing* to do with *temporal* (accidentally ordered) series, but instead center on hierarchical (essentially ordered) series "HERE AND NOW." Aquinas and Feser's arguments don't touch on the issue of whether the past is finite or infinite... Paprika https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650640416865438605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86025333525693135632012-06-05T16:23:39.713-07:002012-06-05T16:23:39.713-07:00The irony of these claims by parsons, dawkins, pz ...The irony of these claims by parsons, dawkins, pz and every other anti-intellectualist atheist is that it is their own belief, namely atheism, that is in fact the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on the human mind.<br /><br />There is not a single piece of evidence for atheism, not a single coherent argument or anything remotely intellectual about it. All the atheist has is skepticism for the sake of skepticism and a bunch of objections (which have either been adequately addressed or refuted by Theists). Never has there been any proof for atheism and bertrand russell (surprisingly) conceeded that.<br /><br />So what else does the atheist have other than his anti-intellectualisms? Well, an emotionally driver animus towards religion and meaning.<br /><br />Thanks for playing keith. Try harder next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73312378077007807802011-03-11T13:27:09.012-08:002011-03-11T13:27:09.012-08:00You say,
"The whole point of theism, for thes...You say,<br />"The whole point of theism, for these classical writers, is that the explanatory buck must stop with something that is in itself intelligible through and through"<br /><br />I wonder if you've read Schopenhauer's <i>On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason</i>. I think he presents an interesting challenge to this approach to the cosmological argument. Schopenhauer claims that the causal sequence is infinite in both directions (backwards as well as forward in time). Causation, S correctly observes, is about change; and thus it concerns origins only indirectly, i.e., in as much as the origination of something consists of a change. Every change presupposes a preceding state of affairs that brought about the new state of affairs. But that prior state, precisely because it occurred at the given point of time rather than before, immediately implies a prior state that preceded it and is its causal precursor. And so on, ad infinitum. This, says S, is the principle of sufficient reason as it occurs in causation.<br /><br />The cosmological argument tries to bring this chain of causation to an end (in the backward direction). But it does so only by applying the principle of sufficient reason of a distinct form, that is as it functions in the grounding of knowledge. The chain of reasons linking a judgement to its ground can come to an end, says S, unlike the chain of causes. <br />Thus, theists, in an attempt to bring the chain of causes to an end (again, in the temporally backward direction) posit an intellectual entity, on that is "intelligible through and through." It is only by doing so that the sequence of reasons can come to an end. But, says S, this involves a confusion between two utterly different kinds of reason: reasons as causes and reasons as the grounds of knowledge. <br /><br />Thus the cosmological argument ultimately rests upon an equivocation of the term 'reason.'<br />Properly understood, the principle of sufficient reason of becoming (i.e., causation) implies that the causal chain cannot have temporal ends (beginning or end in time). So there can be no first cause. For any alleged first cause, the PSR of becoming would license us to ask "what state of affairs preceded this cause, i.e., why did it happen precisely at this point rather than at some time prior to it?" But the chain of reasons as grounds of judgement can come to an end. The Cosmological argument confuses the one with the other.<br /><br />Given that you have obviously spent considerable time studying these issues, I am very interested to hear your take on Schopenhauer's argument.Jason Thibodeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04031407028220844179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92158089297827770612011-02-14T20:12:52.943-08:002011-02-14T20:12:52.943-08:00Anonymous,
You say you would like to see a genuin...Anonymous,<br /><br />You say you would like to see a genuinely informed critique of A-T metaphysics yet you admit you don't adequately understand key parts. This makes me wonder how you'd judge either party actually does understand the metaphysics? How do you know you haven't been exposed to that critique already? How do you know my dismissal of a doctrine is based on unwillingness to wrestle with the text? You make unwarranted assumptions.<br /><br />Maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier. Asking me to seek answers in the A-T texts is like a Catholic telling a Baptist to seek answers in the Bible. They may read the same words but they come to different conclusions. I don't really care to debate Aquinas. He's dead. He can't clarify his position in reference to the things we know today and he did not.<br /><br />I'll tell you what's frustrating from my point of view. Okay, it's not exactly frustrating. It's more of a curiosity. Why do people who claim to know where the answer are have such trouble making the case themselves? Why do they presume there is a difference between arguments for a sweet-smelling god versus arguments for a foul-smelling god? Gods are gods. God-seed is god-seed. I've stumbled into an essentialist enclave yet the denizens refuse to admit their essentialism applies to "proofs" of God as well.<br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65825539936967220682011-02-14T17:44:44.989-08:002011-02-14T17:44:44.989-08:00Oh, this is endlessly frustrating...
Here's a...Oh, this is endlessly frustrating...<br /><br />Here's a point of view. I am not convinced by Feser's arguments or by the Aristotelian-Thomistic view as I understand it. The trouble is, I'm not convinced of it because I <i>am</i> convinced that I don't quite understand these issues well enough. It seems pretty clear to me, for instance, that a whole lot rides on how we understand things like necessity and contingency, matter and form, potentiality and actuality, and causation. I think I understand <i>roughly</i> how Thomistic Aristotelians understand these. What I'm convinced that I don't adequately understand is all of the complex problems that arise when we try to decide whether or not these ideas really do adequately describe the structure of being, or whether or not we even can <i>in principle</i> understand the structure of being. So, what I would like to see is a genuinely informed critique of A-T metaphysics. But I haven't found one. I find, instead, only two sorts of thing: 1) sophisticated and challenging defenses of views that are incompatible with A-T metaphysics, but do not engage with the A-T tradition in any sustained way; 2) people who clearly don't know much about A-T metaphysics dismissing it out of hand, often in ways that make clear to me, as a non-scholar, that these people don't really understand the position they're attacking (at times it's really like listening to critiques of 'Darwinism' that rattle on about how if a bunch of airplane parts were to fall out of the sky, they wouldn't turn out as a functioning airplane...). Most often, the situation is even worse, as it has been in this combox: we get comments by people who not only don't understand A-T metaphysics, who not only think that they don't even need to bother to understand it, but who don't even understand very much about any sort of philosophy at all. <br /><br />I would blame these people for wasting my time, but unfortunately I'm too cleary aware that it was my own stupid choice to keep reading...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53986947614110991082011-02-01T11:59:24.462-08:002011-02-01T11:59:24.462-08:00That's it, don is convinced he understands Aqu...That's it, don is convinced he understands Aquinas and easily dismisses him without ever taking the opportunity to actually read up on him or what he actually thought. Oh well, don is obviously a genius.... or a fart in a thunderstorm making "lots of noise". Oh the frustration... what to choose, what to easily dismiss based on my ignorance... Mmmm....funnyatheistsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57905619905792697062011-01-30T20:14:59.789-08:002011-01-30T20:14:59.789-08:00Edward,
I looked up reviews of The Last Superstit...Edward,<br /><br />I looked up reviews of The Last Superstition. A frequent observation was that it's liberally sprinkled with ad hominems. So I'm going to take recognition of my so-called ad hominem as a pat on the back. But, honestly, I don't deserve the honor. I merely pointed out an erroneous characterization of Parsons. It's unworthy of distinction. Enough applause. <br /><br />Now, getting back to Parsons and Aquinas, I don't totally disagree with you: "Aquinas takes God's existence to be self-evident in itself but not self-evident to us given the way our intellects work." <br /><br />Our minds do expect satisfying truths. Logic is not inherently satisfying. Yet you take issue with "logical contingency" when applied to Aquinas and his understanding of the statement, "God exists." I seriously doubt Aquinas would find logical contingency an issue -- primarily because it's so pointless to ponder "God does not exist" as a *logical* contradiction rather than as a statement of factual error. This is why he has no problem admitting, "No difficulty, consequently, befalls anyone who posits that God does not exist." So if you wish to transform Aquinas' "necessary being" to the "logically necessary being," I'll admit "God exists" has the excellent profundity of "All bachelors are unmarried." But my reading of Aquinas, such as it is, convinces me that he was interested in the ontological necessity of God, not the logical necessity of the proposition.<br /><br />I know it must frustrate a theist that we so easily dismiss proofs of God. But that's the argument's fault. There is nothing particularly challenging about them. And they are not hard to understand. Plus, it's not as if "the historically most important writers" were unaware of this. I suggest Aquinas wasn't overly optimistic. That's likely why he admits what many of the more ignorant would consider unthinkable: "self-evident in itself" includes that which can be taught. It is only necessary that "custom in a child comes to have the force of nature." Through Boethius, he suggests "there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned." He further admits self-evidence does not imply truth: "After all, many ancients said that this world itself was God." This smacks of esoteric "knowledge" and the power of myth. Some would consider that prudence.<br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87131772524627874432011-01-29T11:16:16.877-08:002011-01-29T11:16:16.877-08:00Don,
You seem hell bent on proving my point for m...Don,<br /><br />You seem hell bent on proving my point for me every time you try to counter it.<br /><br />Aquinas takes God's existence to be self-evident <i>in itself</i> but not self-evident <i>to us</i> given the way our intellects work. That is why he thinks we need to arrive at God's existence via causal arguments, and why he rejects Anselm's argument.<br /><br />Now, this is an extremely well-known fact about Aquinas's natural theology. Anyone who actually knew anything about Aquinas would know this. But, here and elsewhere, instead of doing your homework, you toss off some criticism you pulled out of your hat on the basis of what you thought you could piece together from a few combox remarks.<br /><br />Really, this is a waste of time. Arguing with people like you is like arguing with someone who thinks that chemists literally believe that molecules are tiny wooden balls held together by sticks, and offers snarky challenges to anyone who disagrees to prove to him otherwise. You don't know what you are talking about and you don't care to know. You are embarrassing yourself and wasting my time. <br /><br />As to your insinuation that my problem with Parsons is that he doesn't agree with Aquinas et al., this is just yet another typical village atheist ad hominem. As I've made clear several times now, my beef with Parsons is that he dismissed an entire field of inquiry as a "fraud" and as intellectually unserious while at the same time showing that he did not know what the historically most important writers actually said. If he had <i>merely</i> expressed disagreement with those writers, without the clueless dismissal, I wouldn't have written my original post and we wouldn't be having this discussion.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75686416445123533782011-01-29T10:05:14.870-08:002011-01-29T10:05:14.870-08:00Edward,
Perhaps if Aquinas really thought God was...Edward,<br /><br />Perhaps if Aquinas really thought God was not "logically contingent" he would not have bothered to offer his proofs at all. If non-existence of God, as a thought in itself, is logically impossible why bother with five proofs? Why bother with even one? Why bother starting his Third Way with observations about the world as we find it? That's an empirical start. Obviously, if one has to "prove" God is non-contingent after a line of reasoning that includes empirical input, it is not purely logical. Presumably, if God's existence was truly a logical starting point, and God's existence was logically necessary, Aquinas would have followed Aristotle's advice: "about things that could not have been, and cannot now or in the future be, other than they are, nobody who takes them to be of this nature wastes his time in deliberation." So I think you misrepresent Aquinas and the others.<br /><br />However, even being generous to your POV, I have to add, I think you overreact. After all, it doesn't matter what these men may believe. Parsons is not referring strictly and only to their beliefs. He does not take it for granted, as you appear to do, that their beliefs and their assertions are necessarily correct just because they may believe them. <br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51089288885582750422011-01-28T23:37:29.014-08:002011-01-28T23:37:29.014-08:00djindra,
You ignored the key part of the very Par...djindra,<br /><br />You ignored the key part of the very Parsons quote you cited. As you just said, Parsons thinks that a brute fact is "logically contingent." But God is <i>not</i> logically contingent in the view of the philosophers I cited.<br /><br />That does not mean that any of these thinkers is committed to the view that God can be "defined into existence," in the sense in which modern philosophers would understand that expression. It does not mean that they are subject to the objection that the cosmological argument reduces to the "ontological argument," or any of the other stock objections borrowed from Kant or Hume, which presuppose various modern (e.g. Leibnizian) metaphysical and logical assumptions. The views that Aristotelians, Scholastics, etc. have about the nature of logical truth, necessity, and related notions are simply not the same as that of either the modern empiricist or the modern rationalist. But I doubt Parsons knows the difference. And if either he (or you) would need it explained in a combox, that merely proves my point, viz. that Parsons and other pop atheist hacks don't have a clue about what Aristotelians, Thomists and other classical and Scholastic writers actually thought, and thus shouldn't be opening up their mouths about the subject.<br /><br />I would advise you to stop wasting your time trying to defend a lightweight like Parsons. He shot his mouth off and he deserves the abuse he gets. Try instead seriously to study the work of writers like the ones I've mentioned, and of contemporary philosophers influenced by them. If you end up disagreeing anyway, fine, but at least your disagreement will be informed. This will require actually cracking a book or three, though, rather than hanging out in comboxes.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41826140553289150062011-01-28T22:37:49.225-08:002011-01-28T22:37:49.225-08:00Looking closer at the topic, Feser takes issue wit...Looking closer at the topic, Feser takes issue with Parsons' assertion that: "Both theists and atheists begin with an uncaused brute fact."<br /><br />On this, Feser accuses Parsons and "so many other atheists" of not mastering the arguments of the theist side. Yet on inspection I find that Feser has misrepresented Parsons. This is how Parsons defines his usage:<br /><br />"By 'ultimate brute fact' I mean a primordial or original state of affairs, one which, though its existence is logically contingent, is not caused by, dependent upon, conditioned by, reducible to, or supervenient upon any other prior or more basic entity or state of affairs."<br /><br />Does Feser expect us to believe Aristotle, Plotinus, Anselm, or Aquinas did not believe God exists as an "original state of affairs," a state "not caused by, dependent upon, conditioned by, reducible to, or supervenient upon any other prior or more basic entity or state of affairs?" I think this would come as quite a surprise to these men. <br /><br />Feser has merely paraphrased Parsons' meaning then erroneously claimed Parsons' meaning is somehow different. It isn't. And it is clearly not different. So what is really going on here?Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62708856831204087302011-01-28T11:41:57.136-08:002011-01-28T11:41:57.136-08:00Hey Hey, it's Pere/J / He's nuts and here ...Hey Hey, it's Pere/J / He's nuts and here to have his say / Hates the jews (and catholics too!) / And just can't get enough of you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90960303060803508922011-01-26T07:53:32.059-08:002011-01-26T07:53:32.059-08:00Tony,
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out....Tony,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Btw, I'll agree that words should have an agreed-upon meaning.<br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48457860014074325392011-01-26T07:11:24.916-08:002011-01-26T07:11:24.916-08:00Hahahaha. You go from joke to joke. Ed Feser has...Hahahaha. You go from joke to joke. Ed Feser has made that case repeatedly in this blog. But nobody who has read what you said above would even want to start to "make that case" without your prior firm commitment to the proposition that words have determinate meaning. For myself, I will leave Ed to make the argument, since he has done it so much, as in here (and its links). <br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/dretske-on-meaning.htmlTonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74095509581684910922011-01-26T06:09:03.958-08:002011-01-26T06:09:03.958-08:00Tony,
"You cut the rug out from underneath a...Tony,<br /><br />"You cut the rug out from underneath any attempt to use words to mean something (if no non-material essences, then no meaning)"<br /><br />If I understand your meaning I'd enjoy seeing you make that case.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47271607761794159992011-01-25T21:38:22.748-08:002011-01-25T21:38:22.748-08:00Don, that's pretty funny. You cut the rug out...Don, that's pretty funny. You cut the rug out from underneath any attempt to use words to mean something (if no non-material essences, then no meaning), and then suggest that your opponent stopped arguing because "the opponent has no case." <br /><br />Yeah, I guess you are right: no case that can be made without words, at least. Farting into the wind, indeed: for words become mere mouth farts if there is no meaning.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21111846390930141332011-01-25T20:19:30.086-08:002011-01-25T20:19:30.086-08:00Farting into the wind, especially into a thunderst...Farting into the wind, especially into a thunderstorm, generally brings hot air. Careful there Don. Rather read up before attempting to make a logical criticism old boy :).funnyatheistsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47534959054170852902011-01-25T19:26:39.177-08:002011-01-25T19:26:39.177-08:00Leo,
So now you quote your holy book instead of a...Leo,<br /><br />So now you quote your holy book instead of attempting to make a case. When this happens I'm fairly confident the opponent has no case. It's probably lost in that nowhereland between "composite substances and that which is metaphysically absolutely simple." There must be a gaping hole in the universe in that space. Anyway, I feel a lot of hot air from that direction.<br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86859505775069104672011-01-25T17:58:34.052-08:002011-01-25T17:58:34.052-08:00@Don:
He's playing a semantic game and I'...@Don:<br /><br /><i>He's playing a semantic game and I'm on to that.</i><br /><br />You must be remarkably clever indeed if you can both confessedly not understand what Ed is saying and nevertheless be "on" to his playing a "semantic game".<br /><br />But I think I will now cease, for we ought "not argue with every one, nor practise upon the man in the street: for there are some people with whom any argument is bound to degenerate. For against any one who is ready to try all means in order to seem not to be beaten, it is indeed fair to try all means of bringing about one's conclusion: but it is not good form. Wherefore the best rule is, not lightly to engage with casual acquaintances, or bad argument is sure to result."Leo Carton Mollicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37676795544169390132011-01-25T16:16:11.448-08:002011-01-25T16:16:11.448-08:00Djindra said:
"Leo,
Oh, but I am allowed be...Djindra said:<br /><br />"Leo,<br /><br />Oh, but I am allowed because what he has written above is in fact b.s. He's playing a semantic game and I'm on to that."<br /><br /><br />Don, if you had started off with that statement of motive rather than playing coy, you would have saved a lot of wasted time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75380374837471485102011-01-25T05:38:53.387-08:002011-01-25T05:38:53.387-08:00Leo,
Oh, but I am allowed because what he has wri...Leo,<br /><br />Oh, but I am allowed because what he has written above is in fact b.s. He's playing a semantic game and I'm on to that.<br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64065270135324259042011-01-24T23:02:58.680-08:002011-01-24T23:02:58.680-08:00@Don:
I don't know who Ed is or what he belie...@Don:<br /><br /><i>I don't know who Ed is or what he believes. I stumbled upon this site yesterday and it's the first I ever heard of him. So I don't know exactly how Ed uses "act." People interpret the ancients in various ways.</i><br /><br />All right, here's some advice: try actually reading some of what Ed (or Aristotle, or Aquinas, or whoever) has written about act and potency before bullshitting about the arguments he presents. Sorry, but you're not allowed to say that someone is obviously wrong until you know what it is they're saying.Leo Mollicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7539666166344222472011-01-24T21:32:07.705-08:002011-01-24T21:32:07.705-08:00Leo,
Are definitions the heart and basis of all a...Leo,<br /><br />Are definitions the heart and basis of all argument? It depends on the argument. There are some arguments in which agreement on definitions are vital. But even then, definitions by themselves are easily abused. Plato's Socrates was very good at taking advantage of men who never noticed this abuse. I don't pretend to be a mind reader. I don't know who Ed is or what he believes. I stumbled upon this site yesterday and it's the first I ever heard of him. So I don't know exactly how Ed uses "act." People interpret the ancients in various ways. I gather Ed's is yet another version of the existence vs. essence distinction distilled, through Aristotle and Aquinas, from Plato's Forms. All very nice. But it makes no difference to the cause. You may call the “permanent” anything you wish. Call it divine/pure/simple essence or act. It doesn't matter. It's all semantics. At the root, we still have an essence. You may prefer to see that essence as some sort of non-material stuff. I may prefer to see it as material stuff. The only difference between those positions is that we know we have material stuff (assuming we agree solipsism is silly). We don't know there is anything non-material. The best case is that we're in the same boat. The worst case is that we can't be sure you are sitting on anything.<br /><br />Don.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11797514991542374032011-01-24T21:01:43.561-08:002011-01-24T21:01:43.561-08:00David,
I've already saved you time. I admit I...David,<br /><br />I've already saved you time. I admit I do not accept Aristotelian metaphysics. And I've never accepted Plato's Forms. I see no reason I should. But you seem to suggest I must accept your terms or your axioms or whatever before you can make your case. It's a two-way street. I say if there is a solid case, you should start with my axioms and still make your case. I also say an argument based purely on metaphysical ground is lacking. At some point, the metaphysical must be re-enforced by the physical or we end up arguing over the number of angels that can fit on a pinhead. At the very least, I'd expect you to make the case that Aristotelian metaphysics is a valid reference point. That is a task in itself.<br /><br />I'm going to suggest a blasphemy that may not be true but likely is. The real disagreement is never on the metaphysical although philosophers have a way of pretending so.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39894352962307457222011-01-24T09:43:07.494-08:002011-01-24T09:43:07.494-08:00@djindra:
First, you can call me "Leo."...@djindra:<br /><br />First, you can call me "Leo."<br /><br />Second, I do not believe that "gods, unlike matter, are infinite, immutable, and absolutely simple." There are no gods, and a fortiori none possessing those attributes.<br /><br />You seem to place a lot of weight on my arguing from "definitions" rather than "facts." I'm still confused, however, as to what you expect us to argue from. Definitions are the heart and basis of all argument.<br /><br />Finally, you have yet to provide the least evidence that you understand what the hell Ed means by "act." Might such evidence possibly be forthcoming? Or am I wasting my time expecting it?Leo Carton Mollicanoreply@blogger.com