tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5882966951406293279..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Monkey in your soul?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger299125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2419544185835213372011-10-20T06:46:55.661-07:002011-10-20T06:46:55.661-07:00>No goalpost moving is needed... you have yet t...>No goalpost moving is needed... you have yet to show how religions not from the western monotheistic schools cannot be shoehorned into your "God of Philosophers".<br /><br />Now you are shifting the burden of proof & challenging me to prove a negative which shows you are now implicitly conceding your claim Hindu & or Zoroastrian Deities can be shown to be the God of the Philosophers is bogus.<br /><br />Tops you clearly don't know enough philosophy or comparative religion to fake it.<br /><br />Epic fail.<br /><br />Hindu & Zoroastrian Deities can't be the God of the Philosophers. <br /><br />Live with it or have a good cry about it.<br /><br />Oh & yes I am very good friends with Jewish people who don't believe in Jesus too.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33787370388931339272011-10-19T12:43:48.335-07:002011-10-19T12:43:48.335-07:00But you don't so that is your problem.
by &qu...<i>But you don't so that is your problem.</i><br /><br />by "don't" you seem to mean "not as I do".<br /><br /><i>The above being an example of your inability to interpret correctly.</i><br /><br />Again "inability to interpret correctly" just seems to mean "not as I do"<br /><br /><i>Given such an absurd standard of nominalism and linguistic relativism</i><br /><br />Nothing absurd about it.... your "God of Philosophers" is so ill-defined that virtually any pantheon can be covered under it.<br /><br /><i>Actually I personally know dozens and dozens of Jews who became believers in Jesus, of both the Messianic and Hebrew Catholic variety.</i><br /><br />And? Do you know any Jews that haven't converted to Catholicism? I've known quite a few myself.<br /><br /><br /><i>By moving the goalposts back to Judaism you are conceding defeat since you are admitting only western monotheistic religions are compatible with the God of the Philosophers and not all religions as you originally implied.</i><br /><br />No goalpost moving is needed... you have yet to show how religions not from the western monotheistic schools cannot be shoehorned into your "God of Philosophers"StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12682775791910966262011-10-17T19:58:46.831-07:002011-10-17T19:58:46.831-07:00>Sure they can... as long as I interpret it &qu...>Sure they can... as long as I interpret it "correctly".<br /><br />But you don't so that is your problem.<br /><br />>After all Catholics have three deities that they "interpret" into a single deity..<br /><br />The above being an example of your inability to interpret correctly.<br /><br />>so one can interpret two (dualism) or four+ (pantheism) the same way.<br /><br />Given such an absurd standard of nominalism and linguistic relativism on Crack cocaine(backed up with an extreme ignorance of the theologies, histories, philosophies and particulars of these religions) I could “redefine” your politics to the right of mine and I could “redefine” your Atheism into Theism and your skepticism into anti-Skepticism.<br /><br />You will have to do better than John Cleese styles of argument.<br /><br />>Nor have the Jews... which goes back to my point that the Christianity is just one of the many possible sets for revelations that can be set on top of your "God of Philosophers".<br /><br />Actually I personally know dozens and dozens of Jews who became believers in Jesus, of both the Messianic and Hebrew Catholic variety. They came to believe from comparing the OT to the NT and Jewish Tradition which is just proto-Catholic tradition. They all gave me my nickname BenYachov (aka Son of James).<br /><br />I’m sorry you haven’t made your case in regards to Hinduism or Zoroastrianism. By moving the goalposts back to Judaism you are conceding defeat since you are admitting only western monotheistic religions are compatible with the God of the Philosophers and not all religions as you originally implied.<br /><br />You don’t know enough to fake it Tops. <br /><br />Sorry but them’s the breaks.<br /><br />Fail.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10248038634006209682011-10-16T07:18:00.286-07:002011-10-16T07:18:00.286-07:00Yes you changed the Theology of those religions to...<i>Yes you changed the Theology of those religions to make them more like Judeo-Christianity since the "gods" of dualism & or Pantheism can't by definition be purely actual.</i><br /><br />Sure they can... as long as I interpret it "correctly". After all Catholics have three deities that they "interpret" into a single deity... so one can interpret two (dualism) or four+ (pantheism) the same way.<br /><br /><i>Why is that? Anyway talk to the guys over at Catholic Answers or ENVOY about that part. Which is the next step up after you prove God philosophically.</i><br /><br />Because I can stamp any number of arbitrary belief sets on top of the "God of Philosophers".<br /><br /><i>That is by a liberal use of the fallacy of equivocation you can radically redefine & change those religions, their historical doctrines, and their own perennial philosophies to make them resemble Judeo-Christianity.</i><br /><br />I don't need to make them resemble "Judeo-Christianity"... I just need to theologically manipulate them into the "God of Philosophers" just like you have done with Catholicism.<br /><br /><i>Yet for some reason no Muslim is moved to confess Christ by that tactic?</i><br /><br />Nor have the Jews... which goes back to my point that the Christianity is just one of the many possible sets for revelations that can be set on top of your "God of Philosophers"<br /><br /><i>No Hindu or Zoroastrian would buy your claim here.</i><br /><br />Really? Or maybe I'm the next great Zoroastrian/Hindu prophet who will raise the one true faith back to its rightful place in the world.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2603734961691610062011-10-15T17:29:48.827-07:002011-10-15T17:29:48.827-07:00>I'm saying that many deities can, with the...>I'm saying that many deities can, with the correct application of theological arguing, fit within the "God of Philosophers" description.<br /><br />That is by a liberal use of the <b>fallacy of equivocation</b> you can radically redefine & change those religions, their historical doctrines, and their own perennial philosophies to make them resemble Judeo-Christianity. <br /><br />Yeh I can reinterpret/misinterpret the Koran(contrary to Muslim Hadiths) to make it appear to support the Deity of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />Yet for some reason no Muslim is moved to confess Christ by that tactic?<br /><br />No Hindu or Zoroastrian would buy your claim here.<br /><br />Like I said you don't know enough philosophy and or comparative religion to fake this.<br /><br />Give it up Tops.<br /><br />Fail!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53320457803900679932011-10-15T17:21:46.651-07:002011-10-15T17:21:46.651-07:00>Even if I accept your claim that there can onl...>Even if I accept your claim that there can only be one "God of Philosophers" there is still no way to make that leap to a specific deity described by "revelation".<br /><br />Why is that? Anyway talk to the guys over at Catholic Answers or ENVOY about that part. Which is the next step up after you prove God philosophically.<br /><br />Here we do philosophy and natural theology and you waste our time with your warmed over boiler plate anti-Protestant Fundamentalist polemics on the Bible that you no doubt learned from the jerks over at richardawkins.net or whatever.<br /><br />Catholics aren't fundamentalist Protestants Tops.<br /><br />Get over it.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63671258666299598272011-10-15T13:47:18.426-07:002011-10-15T13:47:18.426-07:00>Correct... I step outside of philosophy and in...>Correct... I step outside of philosophy and into theology.<br /><br />Yes you changed the Theology of those religions to make them more like Judeo-Christianity since the "gods" of dualism & or Pantheism can't by definition be purely actual.<br /><br />Like I said you don't know enough philosophy or comparative religion to fake it. <br /><br />You are better suited to argue with YEC's or Fundies.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80329293893458800722011-10-15T06:09:25.996-07:002011-10-15T06:09:25.996-07:00Accept the God of the Philosophers is known by rea...<i>Accept the God of the Philosophers is known by reason before revelation.</i><br /><br />Well no, I don't...<br /><br />But then the point I'm trying to get across is that the description of the "God of Philosophers" leaves itself open to a vast array of possible revelations.<br /><br />Even if I accept your claim that there can only be one "God of Philosophers" there is still no way to make that leap to a specific deity described by "revelation".<br /><br /><i>BTW Your original claim was Vishnu, Vāhigurū, Ahura Mazda etc are also the God of the philosophers.</i><br /><br />I'm saying that many deities can, with the correct application of theological arguing, fit within the "God of Philosophers" description.<br /><br /><i>The only way you can make them so is to change the Zoroastrian religion & or the other religions & make arguments outside of philosophy.</i><br /><br />Correct... I step outside of philosophy and into theology.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4164934256511004562011-10-14T13:44:09.740-07:002011-10-14T13:44:09.740-07:00>not at all... one can just stamp any stack of ...>not at all... one can just stamp any stack of "revelations"..<br /><br />Accept the God of the Philosophers is known by reason before revelation.<br /><br />Reason dictates you can't have two pure actual beings. Just as you can't have two infinities in the same relation since one would be limited by not being the other and thus not truly infinite.<br /><br />BTW Your original claim was Vishnu, Vāhigurū, Ahura Mazda etc are also the God of the philosophers.<br /><br />The only way you can make them so is to change the Zoroastrian religion & or the other religions & make arguments outside of philosophy.<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br />Like I said Tops you simply don't know enough logic, philosophy or comparative religion to fake it.<br /><br /><br />Continuous Epic Fail!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-556195424005258442011-10-12T03:11:33.045-07:002011-10-12T03:11:33.045-07:00No, that is logically impossible.
not at all... ...<i>No, that is logically impossible. </i><br /><br />not at all... one can just stamp any stack of "revelations" on top of the description of "being of pure action" (the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Muslim God, ... , Azathoth).<br /><br /><i>A prior lemma is not something assumed, but something previously proven that is used as a jumping off point for additional theorems</i><br /><br />Sorry, but it hasn't even been proven philosophically... let alone proven under anything approaching rigor.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3504045381416976552011-10-11T19:15:28.436-07:002011-10-11T19:15:28.436-07:00TheOFloinn,
This is also a contention: "Ther...TheOFloinn,<br /><br />This is also a contention: "There are reasons in philosophy why the being of pure act possesses three hypostases."Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58327875305681697952011-10-11T17:29:42.211-07:002011-10-11T17:29:42.211-07:00there is an incredibly large set of possible being...<i>there is an incredibly large set of possible beings of pure act.</i> <br /><br />No, that is logically impossible. <br /><br /><i>Leaving aside the question of why one should even make the assumption of a "prior lemma" to begin with.</i> <br /><br />A prior lemma is not something assumed, but something previously proven that is used as a jumping off point for additional theorems. <br />+ + +<br /><br />But, dudes, there are 287 comments here, and no one else is around. I'm taking it off my tickler.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84470014365662035022011-10-11T15:54:46.232-07:002011-10-11T15:54:46.232-07:00But if you start with the conclusion of a prior le...<i>But if you start with the conclusion of a prior lemma, the existence of a being of pure act, you can deduce that such a being is the origin of all powers. Then from the empirical fact that human beings have the powers of intellect and volition, the rest follows.</i><br /><br />Sure... but there is an incredibly large set of possible beings of pure act.<br /><br />Leaving aside the question of why one should even make the assumption of a "prior lemma" to begin with.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24510277412352972722011-10-11T05:46:43.237-07:002011-10-11T05:46:43.237-07:00"Your contention was that he rationalized a t..."Your contention was that he rationalized a trinity rather than reason his way to a trinity. You haven't supported that yet."<br /><br />djindra<br />And you haven't shown he reasoned his way there.<br /><br />TOF<br />But it was yourself that made the contention. Argument is to the affirmative. <br /><br />djindra<br />I've read enough Plato to know he rarely reasons his way to a conclusion. <br /><br />TOF<br />Since I cited Plotinus and Thomas Aquinas, this is an interesting opinion, but not germane. I know many people who contend correctly that the earth is a sphere, but are unable to reason their way to it. That does not mean there are no reasoned arguments.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6376727612611739562011-10-10T19:25:30.920-07:002011-10-10T19:25:30.920-07:00TheOFloinn,
"Plato and Parmenides? That'...TheOFloinn,<br /><br /><i>"Plato and Parmenides? That's a good trick."</i> <br /><br />If you notice, I italicized <i>Parmenides</i>, as in Plato's dialogue <i>Parmenides</i>. The One and the Many is a primary topic in that dialogue.<br /><br /><i>"Your contention was that he rationalized a trinity rather than reason his way to a trinity. You haven't supported that yet."</i><br /><br />And you haven't shown he reasoned his way there.<br /><br />I've read enough Plato to know he rarely reasons his way to a conclusion. He manipulates by using the myths already accepted by the interlocutors or creates one for future use. I haven't read the neoplatonists but I doubt they bettered their master.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24931358414893879682011-10-10T15:13:10.041-07:002011-10-10T15:13:10.041-07:00So then aren't you doing the same thing... sta...<i>So then aren't you doing the same thing... stamping your own names / belief system on top of something else?</i> <br /><br />Nope. The rest is left as an exercise to the reader. But if you start with the conclusion of a prior lemma, the existence of a being of pure act, you can deduce that such a being is the origin of all powers. Then from the empirical fact that human beings have the powers of intellect and volition, the rest follows.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-993623587255935202011-10-10T15:10:21.033-07:002011-10-10T15:10:21.033-07:00[Plotinus rationalized a triune God because...] Pr...<i>[Plotinus rationalized a triune God because...] Probably Plato's Republic, Parmenides, and the ancient Greek idea of The Good.</i> <br /><br />Plato <i>and</i> Parmenides? That's a good trick. Your contention was that he rationalized a trinity rather than reason his way to a trinity. You haven't supported that yet.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22218331226780156012011-10-10T07:47:15.885-07:002011-10-10T07:47:15.885-07:00Because then you would not be talking about the en...<i>Because then you would not be talking about the entities you have named but simply giving new names to the One, the Intellect/Word and the Spirit. There are philosophical reasons why they are so called. If you wish to call them Manny, Moe, and Jack, have at it, but that is to obscure their roles.<br /></i><br /><br />So then aren't you doing the same thing... stamping your own names / belief system on top of something else?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24230150906534426542011-10-10T04:31:46.409-07:002011-10-10T04:31:46.409-07:00TheOFloinn,
"Plotinus was a Neoplatonist pag...TheOFloinn,<br /><br /><i>"Plotinus was a Neoplatonist pagan. What rationale was he driven by?"</i><br /><br />Probably Plato's <i>Republic</i>, <i>Parmenides</i>, and the ancient Greek idea of The Good.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74970268668892900332011-10-09T19:09:00.460-07:002011-10-09T19:09:00.460-07:00"There are reasons in philosophy why the bein..."There are reasons in philosophy why the being of pure act possesses three hypostases."<br /><br /><i>Arbitrary reasons. Rationalizations.</i> <br /><br />How would you know? Plotinus was a Neoplatonist pagan. What rationale was he driven by?TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52528121481542708532011-10-09T10:53:26.654-07:002011-10-09T10:53:26.654-07:00TheOFloinn,
"There are reasons in philosophy...TheOFloinn,<br /><br /><i>"There are reasons in philosophy why the being of pure act possesses three hypostases."</i><br /><br />Arbitrary reasons. Rationalizations.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4584443075645287922011-10-09T01:27:12.119-07:002011-10-09T01:27:12.119-07:00Because then you would not be talking about the en...Because then you would not be talking about the entities you have named but simply giving new names to the One, the Intellect/Word and the Spirit. There are philosophical reasons why they are so called. If you wish to call them Manny, Moe, and Jack, have at it, but that is to obscure their roles.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86289217002075126582011-10-08T05:50:10.497-07:002011-10-08T05:50:10.497-07:00Unless you can give such reasons as Plotinus or Th...<i>Unless you can give such reasons as Plotinus or Thomas Aquinas did, you are simply making an arbitrary declaration.</i><br /><br />Well why not just copy their reasons and then past my own trinity into the names?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76500094159645050912011-10-07T18:54:08.771-07:002011-10-07T18:54:08.771-07:00I could go the Catholic route and build a trinity ...<i>I could go the Catholic route and build a trinity with Zervan, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as its members</i> <br /><br />Arbitrary. There are <i>reasons in philosophy</i> why the being of pure act possesses three hypostases. Unless you can give such reasons as Plotinus or Thomas Aquinas did, you are simply making an arbitrary declaration.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22560893923446311382011-10-07T11:19:58.492-07:002011-10-07T11:19:58.492-07:00Zervan created him. If if you drop Zervan well Ahu...<i>Zervan created him. If if you drop Zervan well Ahura Mazda didn't create Angra Mainyu thus he is limited by the existence of Angra Mainyu.</i><br /><br />Unless I invoke theology and simply chose a system where Angra Mainyu wasn't created by Zervan... Or I could go the Catholic route and build a trinity with Zervan, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as its members. There, now all is resolved... the deity of Zoroastrianism is the God of Philosophers.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.com