tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5791841659234902758..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Hume, cosmological arguments, and the fallacy of compositionEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45797385829508153532019-12-18T23:29:05.832-08:002019-12-18T23:29:05.832-08:00“You can make this claim [about] any sort of logic...“You can make this claim [about] any sort of logical fallacy. All fallacies will have individual cases where the conclusions are still true, some will even have classes of cases.”<br />Feser was not making the point that the argument, though committing the fallacy of composition, may still have a true conclusion. His point is that the argument does not commit the fallacy in the first place. <br /><br />“The universe is more than just a collection of things, it also includes the behaviors of these things. Is there evidence that electromagnetism is contingent?”<br />If electromagnetism is the behavior of things, then electromagnetism is contingent upon the existence of those things. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08884737432876541551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22687719696777861522015-03-30T13:45:44.309-07:002015-03-30T13:45:44.309-07:00This is the oddest thing.
I was only coming to thi...This is the oddest thing.<br />I was only coming to this post because I remebered it, from years back, when someone was claiming that Mike Almeida was an atheist.<br />And I wanted to see that conversation again.<br /><br />Crazy...I come and just see that Mike was just here a couple of days ago addressing the same thing.<br /><br />spookyDonMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1373378591475914792015-03-27T06:02:32.692-07:002015-03-27T06:02:32.692-07:00Almeida is an atheist who authored an argument Six...<i>Almeida is an atheist who authored an argument Six steps to Disprove Christianity? I find this very hard to believe.</i><br /><br />False. That was a post co-opted (from Prosblogion) by some troll.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001511002085064198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25838806171645670792011-02-23T18:26:42.512-08:002011-02-23T18:26:42.512-08:00Let me just say this:
I do not think the first co...Let me just say this:<br /><br />I do not think the first comment to this page was ever adequately responded to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60704169094416918632011-01-09T10:18:02.902-08:002011-01-09T10:18:02.902-08:00>I suppose it is true that light absorption sho...>I suppose it is true that light absorption should be considered the efficient cause of color, rather than the color itself.<br /><br />Now you are learning. Good show.<br /><br />>I don't think qualia are physical, that's why I found your claim that the quale of a color is expansive to be curious, and asked a question.<br /><br />I believe they are real in the moderate sense. Another problem is you assume (when it suits you) that physical things are the only things that are real which of course begs the question. <br /> <br />>Not if you think color is expansive.<br /><br />There is a difference between claiming color is an expansive property vs claiming it is expansive by nature. It simple means if all the parts have expansive property x then the whole have said expansive property. If the whole has expansive property x then the parts have it and thus the fallacy of composition does not apply. Color would clearly be expansive in this case but never light absorbtion anymore than weight or length.<br /><br />It's real easy and you have gone out of your way to make it hard.<br /><br />Under the situation you discribed with the green glass bricks in poor lighting, "blackness" was instantiated in the wall and in the bricks that made it up. Greeness too is instantiated in so much that if I shine a brighter light I can see the wall is made of green bricks and thus is really a green glass wall.<br /><br />But then again you are having a different argument. <br /><br />It was never hard.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37690586171292589042011-01-09T10:16:55.478-08:002011-01-09T10:16:55.478-08:00Let try again the post eating monster is at it aga...Let try again the post eating monster is at it again.<br /><br />>You seem to think realism means if you see the bricks as black when they are in the wall, then they are black.<br /><br />"The view that universals, numbers, and/or propositions exist objectively, apart from the human mind and <b>distinct from any material or physical features</b> of the world is called <b>realism</b>."-Page 41-TLS.<br /><br />Nominalism denies universals & the like are real and conceptionalism teaches universals only exist in the mind.<br /><br />So at this point it is clearly you who are arguing either nominalism or conceptionalism. I believe in the proposition of universal "redness", "greeness" and "blackness" (as far as they instantiate in objects) and I don't conflate these propositions with the material and physical features of objects to absorb and reflect light waves.<br /><br />You have not been arguing with either Dr. Feser's views or with mine. Indeed we are not in fact having the same conversation. Your understanding of realism is faulty. <br /><br />>Of course Dr. Feser's example is by analogy, the point was how valid the analogy was. Dr. Feser was arguing by analogizing to real, extant properties, not perceived properties. He just choose poorly, as many other philosophers seem to have.<br /><br />Rather being the nominalist you are, who denies universal "blackness" and or "greeness" and restricts the colors solely to physical and material features you shift around the argument. In effect your whole argument is no better than proving 2+2=5 by redefining the numeral 5 as the number 4 and then switching back when it suit you.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42909860277335000022011-01-09T10:06:21.596-08:002011-01-09T10:06:21.596-08:00>You seem to think realism means if you see the...>You seem to think realism means if you see the bricks as black when they are in the wall, then they are black.<br /><br />"The view that universals, numbers, and/or propositions exist objectively, apart from the human mind and <b>distinct from any material or physical features</b> of the world is called <b>realism</b>."-Page 41-TLS.<br /><br />Nominalism denies universals & the like are real and conceptionalism teaches universals only exist in the mind.<br /><br />So at this point it is clearly you who are arguing either nominalism or conceptionalism. I believe in the proposition of universal "redness", "greeness" and "blackness" (as far as they instantiate in objects) and I don't conflate these propositions with the material and physical features of objects to absorb and reflect light waves.<br /><br />You have not been arguing with either Dr. Feser's views or with mine. Indeed we are not in fact having the same conversation. Your understanding of realism is faulty. <br /><br />>Of course Dr. Feser's example is by analogy, the point was how valid the analogy was. Dr. Feser was arguing by analogizing to real, extant properties, not perceived properties. He just choose poorly, as many other philosophers seem to have.<br /><br />Rather being the nominalist you are, who denies universal "blackness" and or "greeness" and restricts the colors solely to physical and material features you shift around the argument. In effect your whole argument is no better than proving 2+2=5 by redefining the numeral 5 as the number 4 and then switching back when it suit you. <br /><br />>I suppose it is true that light absorption should be considered the efficient cause of color, rather than the color itself.<br /><br />Now you are learning. Good show.<br /><br />>I don't think qualia are physical, that's why I found your claim that the quale of a color is expansive to be curious, and asked a question.<br /><br />I believe they are real in the moderate sense. Another problem is you assume (when it suits you) that physical things are the only things that are real which of course begs the question. <br /> <br />>Not if you think color is expansive.<br /><br />There is a difference between claiming color is an expansive property vs claiming it is expansive by nature. It simple means if all the parts have expansive property x then the whole have said expansive property. If the whole has expansive property x then the parts have it and thus the fallacy of composition does not apply. Color would clearly be expansive in this case but never light absorbtion anymore than weight or length.<br /><br />It's real easy and you have gone out of your way to make it hard.<br /><br />Under the situation you discribed with the green glass bricks in poor lighting, "blackness" was instantiated in the wall and in the bricks that made it up. Greeness too is instantiated in so much that if I shine a brighter light I can see the wall is made of green bricks and thus is really a green glass wall.<br /><br />But then again you are having a different argument. <br /><br />It was never hard.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12911483784736468882011-01-09T09:26:06.151-08:002011-01-09T09:26:06.151-08:00"The view that universals, numbers, and/or pr..."The view that universals, numbers, and/or propositions exist objectively, apart from the human mind and <b>distinct from any material or physical features</b> of the world is called realism."-Page 41-TLS.<br /><br />>You seem to think realism means if you see the bricks as black when they are in the wall, then they are black.<br /><br />"The view that universals, numbers, and/or propositions exist objectively, apart from the human mind and <b>distinct from any material or physical features</b> of the world is called <b>realism</b>."-Page 41-TLS.<br /><br />Nominalism denies universals & the like are real and conceptionalism teaches universals only exist in the mind.<br /><br />So at this point it is clearly you who are arguing either nominalism or conceptionalism. I believe in the proposition of universal "redness", "greeness" and "blackness" and I don't conflate these propositions with the material and physical feature of material objects to absorb and reflect light waves.<br /><br />You have not been arguing with either Dr. Feser's views or with mine. Indeed we are not in fact having the same conversation.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16953572557238561102011-01-09T07:36:13.335-08:002011-01-09T07:36:13.335-08:00Bottom line you don't even know how & wher...<i>Bottom line you don't even know how & where to argue against Dr. Feser's assertions. </i><br /><br />You are welcome to come to my blog, read the posts reviewing TLS, and point out where I got the arguments in the book wrong. Until then, I will interpret this claim you simply assuming I am in a category you need me to fit into, as opposed to actually wanting to see what I said.<br /><br /><i>Irrelevant where does nature get this new information? </i><br /><br />It's created by an inexact copying process.<br /><br /><i>Where does the copying process get the information? </i><br /><br />Errors in the copying process create new information.<br /><br /><i>Whatever this means?</i><br /><br />It means that the acceptance of realism and the act-potency framework is not sufficient to prove any of Aquinas' five ways. Other assumptions are built into the proofs, assumptions that are not trivial and that I sometimes consider flatly false.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13769397136875104962011-01-09T07:21:05.183-08:002011-01-09T07:21:05.183-08:00Either Dr. Feser chose not to get my post out of t...Either Dr. Feser chose not to get my post out of the spam filter, or it disappeared in some other fashion. So I will try to recreate it. As I said before, I am merely going to correct some mischaracterizations, and after that I will allow BenYachov the last word in regard to the expansiveness of color. I see no future learning to be done there.<br /><br />You seem to think realism means if you see the bricks as black when they are in the wall, then they are black. That might be conceptualism or nominalism (I think you are leaning toward conceptualism, because you don't fully commit to this, but only at convenient times). Realism maintains a firm distinction between the color you see in your mind (the quale) and the color of the brick itself. Thus, I can see green bricks (actual color) that look black (the quale) and make up a wall that really is black (actual color and quale). The color of the brick is a real property of the brick that does not change from merely locating the brick in the wall, and distinct from the color I see in the brick. That you claim this is conceptualism, as described in TLS, is quite backwards. <br /><br />I don't think qualia are physical, that's why I found your claim that the quale of a color is expansive to be curious, and asked a question.<br /><br />I have been arguing under the assumption of realism in this whole thread. That means I acknowledge, for example, Mary lacks a specific ability while she is colorblind. Your attempts to pigeonhole me into positions you do not like do not reflect my opinions, but your opinions only.<br /><br />Of course Dr. Feser's example is by analogy, the point was how valid the analogy was. Dr. Feser was arguing by analogizing to real, extant properties, not perceived properties. He just choose poorly, as many other philosophers seem to have.<br /><br />I suppose it is true that light absorption should be considered the efficient cause of color, rather than the color itself. Still, the manifestation of color matches the light absorption that causes it perfectly. However, the efficient cause of color in opaque objects is still light absorption, just like in translucent ones. Your attempt to make a distinction there was unfounded.<br /><br /><i>I can conclude if an object has any expansive property it's parts have that property.</i><br /><br />Not if you think color is expansive. For example, A red cube made from 27 blocks might not have any individual red block in it's construction but 26 blocks partly red and one that is not red at all. I agree that when you use a property that truly seems to be expansive, like wooden, this could be true.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89737085637901626362011-01-08T13:06:41.779-08:002011-01-08T13:06:41.779-08:00BTW I think the last word suffraced so I responed....BTW I think the last word suffraced so I responed.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18440003466691511332011-01-08T13:05:31.368-08:002011-01-08T13:05:31.368-08:00>Information can be copied in any number of nat...>Information can be copied in any number of natural ways.<br /><br />Irrelevant where does nature get this new information? Your dodging the question. <br /><br />>Agreed, the copying process would be the source of the information.<br /><br />Which begs the question. Where does the copying process get the information? You just move the info from the book to the "copying process" but you didn't answer Dr. Feser.<br /><br />>Answer what, in particular?<br /><br />What is the ultimate explanation for the information? You are not trying to understand are you?<br /><br />QUOTE"He just thinks that to identify an immediate contingent cause for each contingent thing or event in the universe is not to give a sufficient explanation of it. If the Humean disagrees, then he needs to give some reason why identifying such a cause would be sufficient..."<br /> <br />You are great at dodging but lousy at answering in any coherent manner.<br /><br />>Aquinas' argument require more than assumptions than those involved the acceptance of realism, act-potency, etc.<br /><br />Whatever this means?<br /><br />>I get it well enough to see what is required for it.<br /><br />You don't get it at all. Least of all you don't get it enough to sufficiently challenge it.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28928452061491969282011-01-08T10:00:20.833-08:002011-01-08T10:00:20.833-08:00>Still, you're probably better offno coming...>Still, you're probably better offno coming. You don't want to shake your preconceptions too hard, or they'll bruise.<br /><br />I have already lost my old preconceptions. Ones you likely still cling to with full force I would bet.<br /><br />I used to believe that if the Universe was somehow eternal it wouldn't need a God. I now know that is not true. In college philosophy so many many years ago I learned Bertram Russell once said there are only three possible accounts for the Universe. 1) God created it. 2) Two it was always here or 3) It came into existence out of nothing by itself without a cause.<br /><br />That left two possibilities for Atheism vs one for Theism(at best the second might be Pantheism). But thanks to Top Down causality and the differences between efficient causality vs formal I see it's impossible for the Universe to be eternal without God. You could have an eternal universe with God but He is still necessary. <br /> I have found contrary to what I was taught in college that Hume when it come down to it is simply as David Stove said an Irrationalist. All the modern Atheists uncritically accept his errors like a Nun with a 5th grade education believes the Baltimore Catechism blindly. I can't do that. <br /> As for your performance here your bait & switch argumentative tactics are tiresome and unconvincing.<br /><br />Bottom line you don't even know how & where to argue against Dr. Feser's assertions. In short you pick the wrong fights. But it was fun.<br /><br />Till next time.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85042831544243819632011-01-08T09:35:43.828-08:002011-01-08T09:35:43.828-08:00Which begs the question since where does the copyi...<i>Which begs the question since where does the copying agent who adds or subtracts the information get said information?</i><br /><br />Information can be copied in any number of natural ways.<br /><br /><i>If the books which has been copied from all eternity has new information added & old info subtracted then the book is not really the source of information.</i><br /><br />Agreed, the copying process would be the source of the information.<br /><br /><i>All you did in this lame response is move the information you didn't answer Feser at all.</i><br /><br />Answer what, in particular?<br /><br /><i>Of course it's obvious to those of us that accept Aquinas ... </i><br /><br />Aquinas' argument require more than assumptions than those involved the acceptance of realism, act-potency, etc.<br /><br /><i>You claim to have read TLS many times & you still don't get Top down causality? </i><br /><br />I get it well enough to see what is required for it.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64178242297461343802011-01-08T09:30:22.743-08:002011-01-08T09:30:22.743-08:00BenYachov said...
And give you the home team advan...BenYachov said...<br /><i>And give you the home team advantage? What so I can fight J and your Atheist FANBOZ as well as you? I think not.</i><br /><br />You can ignore J instead of "fighting" him, although you may not be capable of making that choice. Outside of that, there is not a semi-regular commentator on that site who is remotely a "fanboy" of mine. <br /><br />While I could abuse the site to accrue an advantage, I have never done so, nor will do so. My posting rules are clear: You can't insult any private commentator but me. I don't moderate comments, although I will delete them if you start insulting other commentators.<br /><br />Still, you're probably better offno coming. You don't want to shake your preconceptions too hard, or they'll bruise.<br /><br />I made my last post on the issue of being expansive yesterday, but it seems to be still stuck in the spam filter. Such is life.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55695446267854556082011-01-07T15:33:18.000-08:002011-01-07T15:33:18.000-08:00>It will be easy enough to pste your comments o...>It will be easy enough to pste your comments over there, if you really want to discuss them.<br /><br />And give you the home team advantage? What so I can fight J and your Atheist FANBOZ as well as you? I think not.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75991781504366975972011-01-07T15:30:51.892-08:002011-01-07T15:30:51.892-08:00>If you want to argue about a post on my blog, ...>If you want to argue about a post on my blog, post on my blog. I'm not going to engage in a protracted discussion on Dr. Feser's blog about a post that he has little or nothing to do with. It will be easy enough to pste your comments over there, if you really want to discuss them.<br /><br />I used that as an example of how you don't know what you are talking about.<br /><br />BTW love Bill Angry unicorn discussion.<br /><br />http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/11/god-and-the-no-angry-unicorn-argument.html<br /><br />QUOTE"But it seems clear to me that Abbey is likening God to an intramundane object much as Bertrand Russell likened him to a celestial teapot. In so doing, both demonstrate a profound ignorance of what sophisticated theists mean by 'God.' They are not talking about a being among beings, let alone a material being among beings. (Deus est ipsum esse subsistens, et cetera.)"<br /><br />It's not hard.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28073686929863417822011-01-07T15:27:34.783-08:002011-01-07T15:27:34.783-08:00>I already pointed out the flaw in your book an...>I already pointed out the flaw in your book analogy was that the information in the books can be added to over time, from copy to copy.<br /><br />Which begs the question since where does the copying agent who adds or subtracts the information get said information? Also this changes the question & thus the argument.<br /><br />If the books which has been copied from all eternity has new information added & old info subtracted then the book is not really the source of information.<br /><br /> All you did in this lame response is move the information you didn't answer Feser at all.<br /> <br />Of course it's obvious to those of us that accept Aquinas a God would be needed for a top down causality of the existence of the book and the info in it & also the copiers who add & subtract info and the specific info that is added and subtracted.<br /><br />You claim to have read TLS many times & you still don't get Top down causality?<br /><br />Hopeless!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65184628698287873072011-01-07T15:10:44.567-08:002011-01-07T15:10:44.567-08:00BenYachov,
If you want to argue about a post on m...BenYachov,<br /><br />If you want to argue about a post on my blog, post on my blog. I'm not going to engage in a protracted discussion on Dr. Feser's blog about a post that he has little or nothing to do with. It will be easy enough to pste your comments over there, if you really want to discuss them.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3764428459088589482011-01-07T15:01:38.915-08:002011-01-07T15:01:38.915-08:00To quote Feser "If A and B are of the same le...To quote Feser <b>"If A and B are of the same length, putting them side by side is going to give us a whole with a length different from those of A and B themselves. That just follows from the nature of length. If A and B are of the same color, putting them side by side is not going to give us a whole with a color different from those of A and B themselves. That just follows from the nature of color.</b><br /><br />How do you get from above words the idea Feser could have in any conceivably rational universe really meant the property of light absorption of objects?<br /><br />No credibility!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19023249509215873942011-01-07T14:40:26.385-08:002011-01-07T14:40:26.385-08:00Also trying to say "Well how do we know God i...Also trying to say "Well how do we know God isn't a teapot or a Teapot created the universe?" you are just channeling Wolpert's error<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6m-KNUmG4<br /><br />Which is your problem you change the meanings of words & you change the argument and you equivocate to such an extreme degree it is impossible to understand or pin down what it is you are really saying. <br /><br />It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you in any fashon.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81332203607443975102011-01-07T14:29:30.879-08:002011-01-07T14:29:30.879-08:00>I would like to say that I was surprised by yo...>I would like to say that I was surprised by your worful reading of my post.<br /><br />Not as surprised as I am that you really think Feser was thinking about color as the light absorption properties of objects (& then in a self serving ad hoc defining that as <b>actual color</b>) and saying so with a straight face.<br /><br />When it is obvious he was talking about color as red,green,orange that we see. <br /><br />Fail!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50230949819858863732011-01-07T14:24:30.680-08:002011-01-07T14:24:30.680-08:00>but this does not refer to Russell's argum...>but this does not refer to Russell's argument directly, but the other types of arguments that could be made along similar lines.<br /><br />I find that hard to believe since you where commenting on Vallicella words directly and clearly misreading them. <br /><br />A FSM & or a Celestial Teapot are Isolanis singular objects in a set and their existence can only be known directly/empirically.<br /><br />Russel was arguing that we would not believe in the existence of a teapot because some ancient book told us but because we had scientific observable evidence.<br /><br />God as he is known in the Classic Sense by definition is not an isolani. The planet Pluto or a rock sitting on it's surface is an isolani. But a Harte/Hawking state is not. Since your a math teacher. Use the following analogy.<br /><br />An isolani is an element in a set. Zeus, FSM, Teapots, humans are isolani. Brahma is not an Isolani he is identified with the set itself. Allah or YHWH are identified with bringing the set into existence. But neither Brahma, Allah or YHWH are isolani in any greater set but even if they where elements in the set can't identify them empirically.<br /><br />God is not a scientific question but a philosophical one. <br /><br />It's not hard and you clearly misread Vallicella as you misread Feser.<br /><br />Hopeless!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64362147851370805442011-01-07T13:48:50.127-08:002011-01-07T13:48:50.127-08:00My immediately prior comment seems to have been lo...My immediately prior comment seems to have been lost in the spam filter again, so this one will only respond to the last BenYachov comment.<br /><br />You didn't mention which of the two Teapot (Long May We Drink) posts which you read, but it doesn't really matter. In <a href="http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2008/12/russells-teapot-not-grandiose-enough.html" rel="nofollow">both</a> of those <a href="http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2010/01/aristotelian-teapot.html" rel="nofollow">posts</a>, I actually held that the Teapot (lmwd) was a physical object, in addition to the other properties. I did say in the first post, "Also, there is nothing in Russell's logic or analogy that relies on the Teapot being a physical thing.", but this does not refer to Russell's argument directly, but the other types of arguments that could be made along similar lines.<br /><br />I would like to say that I was surprised by your worful reading of my post.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79324951326827005362011-01-07T12:09:06.453-08:002011-01-07T12:09:06.453-08:00One Brow I just came from reading your blog & ...One Brow I just came from reading your blog & your response to William Vallicella solid take down of Russel's Teapot argument.<br /><br />Wow I thought your arguments here where stupid! You actually tried to claim with a straight face Russel was talking about a non-physical teapot(which of course if it's not physical then how does it hold tea & thus how is it a teapot?).<br /><br />Yea newflash idiot. QUOTE"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a <b>china teapot</b> revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved..etc" END QUOTE<br /><br />No mention from Russel about it being a non-physical teapot. I won't even get into your misunderstanding of what an Isolani is.<br /><br />So is this what you do? You don't know how to answer an argument intelligently so you re-write & radically change the argument so you can answer the straw man you made?<br /><br />You did that here. You radically rewrote Feser's argument rather then do the sensible thing. Admit you don't understand it.<br /><br />But then again you are an Atheist who doesn't even understand Russell's argument.<br /><br />So there is no hope for you.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.com