tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6570530321632646237..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: I was wrong about Keith ParsonsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79738761029781213072014-03-25T20:21:08.020-07:002014-03-25T20:21:08.020-07:00Ed has my email address, so I've deleted the p...Ed has my email address, so I've deleted the post in which I gave it. Of course I trust all the regulars on this site not to misuse it, and I'll post it again if anyone wants to send me a private email. But I see no reason to invite spam.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50594724026243717432014-03-25T15:17:11.604-07:002014-03-25T15:17:11.604-07:00Dr. Feser,
I think if you simply put the two deba...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I think if you simply put the two debates between you and Keith Parsons into book-form, you would sell a lot of copies. I would definitely purchase it. Please consider this suggestion.<br /><br />And thanks for standing up for classical theism in such an effective way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22773107396292014532014-03-24T07:12:44.399-07:002014-03-24T07:12:44.399-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47373174200284617552014-03-23T21:04:55.679-07:002014-03-23T21:04:55.679-07:00@Scott - I'm sorry if this seems forward, but ...@Scott - I'm sorry if this seems forward, but I'm hoping to ask you a question. Do you share an email address for private correspondence?Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06877019716219367152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68448650743995366972014-03-23T15:40:29.361-07:002014-03-23T15:40:29.361-07:00Since creation constitutes results as entities, it...<i>Since creation constitutes results as entities, it is not a result of nothing. It is caused by God.</i><br /><br />I understand the argument from the point of view of causation but the problem with the ex nihilo formula is that God is also the entire effect because there is no other entity, material or immaterial, to combine with, receive or modify God's power.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5831823437292422382014-03-23T14:20:57.462-07:002014-03-23T14:20:57.462-07:00Step2, I think your question hones in on a potenti...Step2, I think your question hones in on a potential equivocation. <br /><br />"Nothing (1) comes from nothing (2)". <br /><br />"Comes from" refers to cause or conditions contributing to. It does not mean strictly "material stuff made up of." <br /><br />Nothing (1) means "no entity", as in no entity has as its cause...<br /><br />Nothing (2) means nothingness, a condition of nothing including no entity. <br /><br />Out of a condition of there being nothing including no entity, there will result, as effect from cause, no entity. Or: An existent is not caused by nothing. <br /><br />Since creation constitutes results as entities, it is not a result of nothing. It is caused by God.<br /><br />Being materially nothing is only one aspect to there being nothing at all, of course. "Before" God created, there was something but not something material. Before God created, there was "nothing" only in a different sense, there was <i>no created being</i>, but of course there was God. The first created beings that were made up of material stuff were not made up of God-stuff. But then the principle isn't that "a being made up of material stuff cannot "come from" non-material stuff." Nor is it "from a condition of no-material stuff". They were made by God as cause, but not by God as being their material cause. Thus they do not violate the principle "nothing comes from nothing". Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55642228870662940152014-03-23T07:53:48.413-07:002014-03-23T07:53:48.413-07:00It's irrelevant to speak of no material thing ...<i>It's irrelevant to speak of no material thing coming from an absence of material things as illogical when we are talking about a non-material cause that isn't just a 'thing among things'.</i><br /><br />In the "Fifty Shades of Nothing" post a while ago I thought there was a consensus among the theists that absolute nothingness cannot include immaterial entities either, it is devoid of all characteristics and potentials. Therefore when you say that nothing is formed into something by the ultimate being who creates and changes it moment to moment, that underlying power is all there is since the "object" transformed was nothing.<br /><br />There is a theoretical quantum analogy to this power known as a false vacuum but its transition to a ground state doesn't annihilate things in the usual sense although it could change the universe or parts of it into something unrecognizable.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69116044019270241422014-03-23T07:01:36.639-07:002014-03-23T07:01:36.639-07:00Yay! my copy of SM is on the way (that's Schol...Yay! my copy of SM is on the way (that's Scholastic Metaphysics, not sadomasochism - please carefully note the difference).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25879003148019593342014-03-22T21:32:35.335-07:002014-03-22T21:32:35.335-07:00I think he meant "however it might be qualifi...I think he meant "however it might be qualified, it would still be intemperate and inappropriate". <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36759860903365229462014-03-22T20:01:35.533-07:002014-03-22T20:01:35.533-07:00I pretty much fit this description except that I&#...I pretty much fit this description except that I'm pagan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19326322581898301482014-03-22T19:16:59.073-07:002014-03-22T19:16:59.073-07:00Has he really changed his opinions on the field th...Has he really changed his opinions on the field though? He said it was "intemperate and inappropriate" not that he was disagreeing with his previous statements. "However qualified" Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11189663754905839463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72221112859307884522014-03-22T07:57:32.829-07:002014-03-22T07:57:32.829-07:00Even atheists cannot escape their share of common ...Even atheists cannot escape their share of common grace.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088754734378348761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7634589767252684412014-03-21T22:51:28.469-07:002014-03-21T22:51:28.469-07:00I have read a number of times that Mortimer Adler ...I have read a number of times that Mortimer Adler converted to the Roman Catholic Church in his very old age. (He was almost 100 when he died.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69611238039295404762014-03-21T18:39:34.341-07:002014-03-21T18:39:34.341-07:00Jinzang
Non-Catholic Thomists are scarce on the ...Jinzang<br /><br /><i><br />Non-Catholic Thomists are scarce on the ground, sort of like non-Hindu admirers of Adi Shankaracharya. </i><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by admirers but there are a lot (relatively speaking) of non-Hindu admirers of Shankara. I'm one of them.<br /><br />I'm also a non-Catholic admirer of Thomism.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36612136691128103522014-03-21T18:21:04.607-07:002014-03-21T18:21:04.607-07:00There are non-Catholic Thomists. Norman Geisler an...There are non-Catholic Thomists. Norman Geisler and Ravi Zacharias are notable examples.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77580860163170061352014-03-21T18:16:31.228-07:002014-03-21T18:16:31.228-07:00Pardon my reply Step2 . I am using a touch screen...Pardon my reply Step2 . I am using a touch screen. You are right about that being a concept<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanationism<br /><br />The argument from contingency doesn't have any of these issues. Catholicznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54020591750816380522014-03-21T18:09:53.718-07:002014-03-21T18:09:53.718-07:00True that would be but you seem to be creating a f...True that would be but you seem to be creating a false division. The concept and power of that something and its absolute perfection existence in God. It's irelavent to speak of no material thing coming from an absencr of material things as illogiaal when we are talking about a non-material cause that isn't just a 'thing among things'. I suspect that several logical fallacies are being applied by those who thing this is a good rebuttal. Catholicznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86606176628939111492014-03-21T17:36:46.238-07:002014-03-21T17:36:46.238-07:00"An off-topic question: Are there any Thomist..."An off-topic question: Are there any Thomists who buy all of the Natural Theology in Thomism, but who buy absolutely none of the “sacred science” beyond that?"<br /><br />I think Mortimer Adler is going to be the closest you'll find to someone like that.<br /><br />Non-Catholic Thomists are scarce on the ground, sort of like non-Hindu admirers of Adi Shankaracharya.Jinzanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155467948613318531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65868055585907179982014-03-21T17:27:31.908-07:002014-03-21T17:27:31.908-07:00When can we expect Coyne to exhibit Parsons-esque ...When can we expect Coyne to exhibit Parsons-esque behavior?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92140420565532560272014-03-21T17:14:47.233-07:002014-03-21T17:14:47.233-07:00Strictly speaking God was the 'something' ...<i>Strictly speaking God was the 'something' and continues to be the something from which all things that came to exist or are held in existence rely.</i><br /><br />Doesn't that still assume that something can be drawn out of nothing? Otherwise it would seem the universe is composed of "God-stuff" which I've read is a heresy.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2933128803129012892014-03-21T17:14:40.187-07:002014-03-21T17:14:40.187-07:00=
Whilst I agree with Dr. Feser that Parsons has a...=<br />Whilst I agree with Dr. Feser that Parsons has acted very well in this present debate, his arguments have hardly been of the quality to support his previous dismissals of theism. Indeed, although I'm perhaps baised, I think Dr. Feser got the better of the argument in the debate. But it is good to see that he has seemingly been open to a rethinking of that dismissal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79483899667280777342014-03-21T16:47:36.713-07:002014-03-21T16:47:36.713-07:00Sorry, @Tyrrell. Don't know why I thought it w...Sorry, @Tyrrell. Don't know why I thought it was Alistair. Clearly, I'm not actually literate.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57076825698966257982014-03-21T16:44:32.902-07:002014-03-21T16:44:32.902-07:00@Alistair:
I'm not one, but dguller, who'...@Alistair:<br /><br />I'm not one, but dguller, who's around here often, sounds at least close to the position you describe. He started out as an atheist, but he accepted God and an Aristotelian philosophy in general despite explicitly denying a belief in revelation.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3993002653781979202014-03-21T16:19:51.887-07:002014-03-21T16:19:51.887-07:00Sorry for mucking up my quote marks, there. The w...Sorry for mucking up my quote marks, there. The whole portion between the "[Begin hypothetical position]" and the "[\End hypothetical position]" is supposed to be one hypothetical quotation.Tyrrell McAllisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742116091097551615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36770705434893232102014-03-21T16:14:33.331-07:002014-03-21T16:14:33.331-07:00An off-topic question: Are there any Thomists who ...An off-topic question: Are there any Thomists who buy <i>all</i> of the Natural Theology in Thomism, but who buy absolutely none of the “sacred science” beyond that?<br /><br />In other words, I'm looking for explicit, self-avowed Thomists who don't believe in any additional divine revelation. Is there anyone, now or in the past, who says something like the following? <br /><br />[Begin hypothetical position]<br />"I completely agree with Aquinas about what human reason alone can tell us about God. Everything that he says about God that he attributes solely to human reason is completely persuasive to me. “I also agree with him completely about what the limits of human reason are. I further agree with him that all the additional Christian beliefs that he attributes to divine revelation are logically coherent; that is, all of Aquinas's defenses of these beliefs from charges of incoherence succeed. I also agree that, when Aquinas uses human reason to draw implications from divine revelation, he makes valid conditional inferences.<br /><br />“BUT I don't buy any claim that any divine revelation has actually happened. I agree with Aquinas about how far human reason can take us, but I think that, beyond that point, there is no justified belief. I think that a rational appraisal of the evidence would find vanishingly little support for a divine origin of any of the purported revelations that have come down to us.<br /><br />“I concede that human reason leaves ‘gaps’ in our picture of God (e.g., about whether God is ‘three persons, one being’). I offer no alternative account to fill in these gaps. I agree that the Christian account is one possibility (epistemically speaking) for what might truly be the case. Certainly <i>something</i> is the case, <i>some</i> account is true, if not the Christian one. But I assert that there is no justification for believing in any account that goes beyond what human reason along can provide.”<br />[/End hypothetical position]Tyrrell McAllisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742116091097551615noreply@blogger.com