tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5004480137217221407..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Reply to Blackburn on Five ProofsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1043357808011079242018-10-01T02:41:23.296-07:002018-10-01T02:41:23.296-07:00David T
God needs no explanation, just as God need...<b>David T</b><br /><i>God needs no explanation, just as God needs no cause.</i><br /><br />Then why has God given both in a single expression?<br /><br />An expression that reflects the word(explanation) and the deed(cause) in a single event.<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73663531807657648302018-10-01T02:31:31.051-07:002018-10-01T02:31:31.051-07:00David T & John
When David T states:
A brute f...<b>David T & John</b><br /><br />When <b>David T</b> states:<br /><i>A brute fact is simply one that is unintelligible - it is "just there. </i><br /><br /><b>David</b> is partially correct and partially incorrect...<br /><br />If I modify the statement a <i>brute fact</i> would appear to be:<br /><br /><b>A brute fact is intelligible - it is <i>a priori</i>. </b><br /><br />Would this be a more accurate definition of a brute fact for the both of you?<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26957467272067502282018-10-01T00:00:23.873-07:002018-10-01T00:00:23.873-07:00Qualitatively, ideal water as used in potential fl...Qualitatively, ideal water as used in potential flow calculations would not be wet, i.e. possesses no viscosity (Dirichlet slip boundary condition)<br /><br />However, in Navier-Stokes calculations the water would be wet, i.e. possesses viscosity (Dirichlet no-slip boundary condition).Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66897942076401316892018-09-30T23:47:37.738-07:002018-09-30T23:47:37.738-07:00The truth is, asking "what causes water to be...<i>The truth is, asking "what causes water to be wet" is to ask a stupid question.</i><br /><br />It would appear that it requires six molecules of H2O to be combined to make <i>water wet</i> …<br /><br />So, what <i>causes</i> water to be <i>wet</i>? <b>A quest for knowledge.</b>Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64469874680854148172018-09-30T22:53:36.933-07:002018-09-30T22:53:36.933-07:00David
Yes, correct David...
The rule IS the conv...David<br /><br />Yes, correct David...<br /><br />The <i>rule</i> IS the <i>convention</i>.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86876643298098723622018-09-30T22:50:25.914-07:002018-09-30T22:50:25.914-07:00Scott
The rule is the brute fact.
Now, if we app...Scott<br /><br />The <i>rule</i> is the <i>brute fact</i>.<br /><br />Now, if we apply PSR to the <i>rule</i> we must apply the <i>PSR rule</i> to the <i>rule</i>.<br /><br />PSR is a rule; which requires you to formulate a <i>theory</i> of the <i>PSR rule</i>… which is paradoxically a <i>rule</i> itself!<br /><br />Now, there does exist a cheap and cheerful metaphysical answer to this...but, it still suffers from the same problem...<br /><br />HOWEVER it would satisfy you...despite it being a metaphysical illusion...Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8527783458759439772018-09-30T18:26:59.257-07:002018-09-30T18:26:59.257-07:00"Actually water does need a cause of its wetn..."Actually water does need a cause of its wetness...the question is why water exists in the first place, or why God exists in the first place"<br /><br />To ask what causes water to be wet is not at all the same to ask why water exists in the first place. Justification: if I know that water exists because of X, Y, and Z, I am nowhere closer to knowing what causes water to be wet.<br /><br />The truth is, asking "what causes water to be wet" is to ask a stupid question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48037882921371382922018-09-30T07:18:25.203-07:002018-09-30T07:18:25.203-07:00You see Scott... You have a big problem..
In anot...You see Scott... You have a big problem..<br /><br />In another post you state:<br /><i>The only thing that can actualize a potential is an uncaused cause.</i><br /><br />The problem for you is this... the above statement in structure is no different to:<br /><br /><i>The winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first.</i><br /><br />We ask the question: <br /><i>Why is the winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first?</i><br />Your answer: <b>Because it is the rule.</b><br /><br />So, then we ask:<br /><i>Why is the only thing that can actualize a potential an uncaused cause?</i> <br />To be consistent you must answer:<br /><b>Because it is the rule.</b>Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67279542913102590022018-09-30T00:31:20.741-07:002018-09-30T00:31:20.741-07:00Philip Rand
You have badly mis-stated my position...Philip Rand<br /><br />You have badly mis-stated my position.<br /><br />I agree with Scott Lynch that your given example is not an example of a brute fact. This is why I wrote: “No, one couldn’t say this,” after quoting you saying, <i>”One could also say: it’s a brute fact.”</i><br /><br />If (mark it: <b>* IF *</b>) your example had shown a brute fact, then your answer to the question “why?” would necessarily be: “there’s no reason.” As it is not such an example here is your comparison of Scott Lynch’s answer with mine, but corrected:<br /><br /><b>Scott: the reason is the rules<br />Houdini: it’s the convention</b><br /><br /><br />What you’ve written in your post of September 29, 10.44PM is just broken and stupid. If this was an honest mistake on your part I can only advise you take more care in reading others’ responses. I don’t mind being mistaken for Houdini so much but do not mis-state what I have said in order to jerry-rig a provably false conclusion.<br />David Ezembahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989971303822363417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71892299381807228242018-09-29T22:53:10.672-07:002018-09-29T22:53:10.672-07:00David
I may have called you Houdini in the above ...David<br /><br />I may have called you Houdini in the above posts... if I have I apologise for the mistake...replace Houdini with David.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26452669340402668032018-09-29T22:44:29.067-07:002018-09-29T22:44:29.067-07:00Scott & Houdini
It is interesting that your a...Scott & Houdini<br /><br />It is interesting that your answers to:<br /><br /><i>Why does the winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first?</i><br /><br /><b>Scott: the reason is the rules</b><br /><b>Houdini: there is no reason</b><br /><br />Interesting, whey you compare your answers isn't it?<br /><br />Therefore, it would appear when we concatenate your answers to:<br /><br /><i>Why does the winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first?</i><br /><br />You end up with: A BRUTE FACT.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45205358578411261702018-09-29T22:31:44.424-07:002018-09-29T22:31:44.424-07:00And Scott....
This statement of yours is not sayi...And Scott....<br /><br />This statement of yours is not saying what you think:<br /><br /><i>Apart from minds with intentionality, there are no races at all or winners of races.</i><br /><br /><i>Winners of races</i> IS intentionality!!!!!<br /><br />If <i>intentionality</i> did not exist; <i>winners</i> would not exist... IT'S A BRUTE FACT!!!!!!Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78149142954748564462018-09-29T21:56:56.789-07:002018-09-29T21:56:56.789-07:00David
There’s no reason. “It’s the convention,” i...David<br /><br /><i>There’s no reason. “It’s the convention,” is still a reason even if in some way it doesn’t satisfy you.</i><br /><br />Yes, you are correct... it is still a reason... IT IS THE CONVENTION TO STATE A REASON, I.E. A BRUTE FACT!!!!!Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89888993031360177012018-09-29T21:55:00.632-07:002018-09-29T21:55:00.632-07:00Scott
Your position concerning PSR is defeated wi...Scott<br /><br />Your position concerning PSR is defeated with this statement of yours:<br /><br /><i>A brute fact would be if the winner of the race won the race by crossing the finish line first without ever moving a muscle</i><br /><br />PSR convention: The chap crossed the finishing line first.<br /><br />Winners of sprint races(no matter how they achieve it) always cross the finishing line first... that is a brute fact.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53724517770349001072018-09-29T15:10:40.760-07:002018-09-29T15:10:40.760-07:00No, I still don’t get it.
ANSWER: It's the co...No, I still don’t get it.<br /><br /><i>ANSWER: It's the </i>convention<i>.</i><br /><br />Okay, I don’t know how this “uses” PSR. That the answer to this, or any, particular question is “It’s convention” does not make the PSR only a convention.<br /><br /><i>One could also say: </i>It's a brute fact<i>.</i><br /><br />No, one couldn’t say this. If it was a brute fact the answer in your example must needs be: There’s no reason. “It’s the convention,” is still a reason even if in some way it doesn’t satisfy you.David Ezembahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989971303822363417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74515570231309833562018-09-29T10:42:49.664-07:002018-09-29T10:42:49.664-07:00Phillip,
That is not an example of a brute fact. ...Phillip,<br /><br />That is not an example of a brute fact. The winner of the race always finishes first because the people who made the rules of the race said so. Apart from minds with intentionality, there are no races at all or winners of races. <br /><br />A brute fact would be if the winner of the race won the race by crossing the finish line first without ever moving a muscle. For example, if he just slid from the start line to the finish line without any cause.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481589239954065668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83725906400308534112018-09-29T06:40:15.084-07:002018-09-29T06:40:15.084-07:00Greg
Someone could try to accept PSR but deny tha...Greg<br /><br /><i>Someone could try to accept PSR but deny that it implies God's existence.</i><br /><br />Even if one accepts PSR; PSR is simply a <i>convention</i> that is the initial rung of a Metaphysical System.<br /><br />It this <i>convention</i> that provides the <i>grounding</i> of any Metaphysics, no matter how sophisticated.<br /><br />If someone said to me... "I have convinced myself that through metaphysics that God exists..."<br /><br />I wouldn't understand him... I would come away from the conversation thinking... That chap is suffering from the illusion of Metaphysics...<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6082038622412538112018-09-29T03:27:49.457-07:002018-09-29T03:27:49.457-07:00One could also say: It's a brute fact.One could also say: <i>It's a brute fact.</i>Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53433443745229676952018-09-29T03:26:34.404-07:002018-09-29T03:26:34.404-07:00David
Here is a trivial example using PSR:
Why d...David<br /><br />Here is a trivial example using PSR:<br /><br /><i>Why does the winner of a sprint race always cross the finishing line first?</i><br /><br />ANSWER: It's the <i>convention</i>.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15681897286065858092018-09-29T02:31:02.739-07:002018-09-29T02:31:02.739-07:00Thomas Reid answered Hume's'skepticism'...Thomas Reid answered Hume's'skepticism' in the 18th century - why are we still troubled by him today? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581717531927627040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1337560027993695452018-09-28T20:08:30.780-07:002018-09-28T20:08:30.780-07:00David
The PSR is so obviously evident
Yes, you t...David<br /><br /><i>The PSR is so obviously evident</i><br /><br />Yes, you therefore admit that it is simply a mode of description; this creates the impression of a foreseeable logical order to the world. This is the convention that both Theists and Atheists share. <br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10508285052041265232018-09-28T08:40:32.781-07:002018-09-28T08:40:32.781-07:00”But, this simply confirms that PSR is only a conv...<i>”But, this simply confirms that PSR is only a </i>convention.<i>”</i><br /><br />I don’t know what you mean by this. The PSR is so obviously evident I was pointing out that accepting brute facts is a self-defeating position. I call PSR denial madness because it is irrational.<br />David Ezembahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989971303822363417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61832085780879946672018-09-28T04:30:55.404-07:002018-09-28T04:30:55.404-07:00David
Actually water does need a cause of its wet...David<br /><br />Actually water does need a cause of its wetness, but regardless, the question is not why water is wet, of why God is godlike, the question is why water exists in the first place, or why God exists in the first place. What is the reason God exists? If the answer is "God is necessary", then the one claiming this must also prove that it is impossible for at all to exist. If you want to do that, good luck with it, but if you can't it would be wise not to be so confident that everything has a reason. So, my analogy does hold.<br />No, as I said before, I don't really care about the PSR. A first cause is a first cause, with or without the PSR. <br />Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22120403483963255172018-09-28T03:26:37.748-07:002018-09-28T03:26:37.748-07:00In my view God is not unexplained because He expla...In my view God is not unexplained because He explains Himself, but because He needs no explanation, just as He needs no cause. Others may differ on this.David T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12465166826152433002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16896069613959714872018-09-27T22:45:24.609-07:002018-09-27T22:45:24.609-07:00This is why you call PSR denial madness...This is why you call PSR denial <i>madness</i>...Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.com