tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8646663030133047127..comments2024-03-28T07:47:38.176-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Voila! An open thread! (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger469125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8263031664624778232021-05-05T04:20:28.298-07:002021-05-05T04:20:28.298-07:00WCB
Look up Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato...WCB<br /><br />Look up Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54983976391149284432021-05-01T08:10:46.659-07:002021-05-01T08:10:46.659-07:00How about a post about Plato's influence on St...How about a post about Plato's influence on St. Thomas Aquinas?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51801945763545627732021-05-01T04:06:34.919-07:002021-05-01T04:06:34.919-07:00I thought Cervantes was better now.
Guess I was w...I thought Cervantes was better now.<br /><br />Guess I was wrong after all.<br /><br />Sad :(Greg Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79873486132369174442021-04-30T05:02:32.456-07:002021-04-30T05:02:32.456-07:00It is good thing they are not in the same room. Ma...It is good thing they are not in the same room. Maybe they are.Klausnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64610001252661821512021-04-30T01:50:15.079-07:002021-04-30T01:50:15.079-07:00All right, there, there. Popular and believable, ...All right, there, there. Popular and believable, mind like a steel trap (ahem) etc. They are an invaluable tribe of people. Let others be silent. There. That should do it. If not, Kleenex not lacking. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79754822321611509642021-04-30T01:39:33.108-07:002021-04-30T01:39:33.108-07:00Thanks guys for your vociferous support.
Our non-...Thanks guys for your vociferous support. <br />Our non-stop talk does not dig our hole deeper, but we can't hear we're one, no. It burns! Aaaaah! Anonymous, Greg S, DavidXYZ, Unknown, Dont’t Feed The Trolls, Thomas Gavisus, BenG, George, JoeD, Cervantes is a creep, Anticervantes, Mr Green and all the restnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28500729136755875602021-04-29T20:53:08.485-07:002021-04-29T20:53:08.485-07:00The revelation of God to his creatures.
Unfortun...The revelation of God to his creatures. <br /><br />Unfortunately many of his creatures have habitually chosen Evil in life such that when ultimate good is fully revealed, they run from him and into hell. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12146764440034750601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61772972328098322262021-04-28T18:33:59.523-07:002021-04-28T18:33:59.523-07:00What a hoot!What a hoot!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45130868642348072762021-04-28T03:38:46.391-07:002021-04-28T03:38:46.391-07:00To clarify: AFAIK, the identity thesis can only ge...To clarify: AFAIK, the identity thesis can only get off the ground if there is some characteristically irrational activity under different names. <br /><br />Now, generally bad faith/trollish comments merit resistance, and I believe I've gathered a lot of evidence of the former here.Thomas Gavisushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15291566449128189887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2156574934177781042021-04-28T03:24:23.123-07:002021-04-28T03:24:23.123-07:00For reference here's Miguel's currently ac...For reference here's Miguel's currently active (if dormant) blog about Dr. Feser:<br />https://edwardfesermarchfromthomism.blogspot.com/<br /><br />@ Miguel Cervantes<br /><br />For a game to be up, it has to be there; the only person convinced of the existence of some "game" binding these individuals is you. Why is it that the identity thesis is only evident to you alone? <br /><br />Now, some of these posters can, without a doubt, be said to have had a common cause, that is, stopping you from interfering with the discussion in a variety of ways, such as, partly in chronological order: compulsively sharing your obsession with Dr. Feser's supposed hidden heresies, occasioned, in turn, by your manifest inability and/or unwillingness to read anything charitably; your employment of repetition rather than argument, and then, naturally, sockpuppeting, identity theft and spamming your slanders. Your reception, by Dr. Feser, among others, has been, consequently, unfavourable. Your identity theory is thus a clear case of overdetermination: your conduct documented here is entirely sufficient to explain the posts made by the posters you claim to the very same person (George). Now, maybe you think this would be an insufficient explanation, due to the recognisably positive total value of what you post here. I fail to see it, to be honest, but others are welcome to testify. <br /><br />This sort of nonsense does injury to the blog. Apart from clogging the combox with this drivel, it scandalises readers, especially non-Catholics.<br /><br />Please stop. Thomas Gavisushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15291566449128189887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61283153112069984022021-04-28T02:00:36.640-07:002021-04-28T02:00:36.640-07:00Well, your verse leaves a great deal to be desired... Well, your verse leaves a great deal to be desired, but I did receive some edification from it in that I was not familiar with the archaic word 'trow'. You post was not entirely wasted then!FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82704809743558983012021-04-28T01:11:32.093-07:002021-04-28T01:11:32.093-07:00My game’s up now, It’s a mighty clear blow
From sc...My game’s up now, It’s a mighty clear blow<br />From scrambled brain, to pain in the rear woe<br />But hey what’s wrong with a very smart queer trow<br />It’s not like he said now, that we’re just a big weirdo. Anonymous, Greg S, DavidXYZ, Unknown, Dont’t Feed The Trolls, Thomas Gavisus, BenG, George, JoeD, Cervantes is a creep, Anticervantes, Mr Green and all the restnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71570777855371431602021-04-27T14:54:08.559-07:002021-04-27T14:54:08.559-07:00@ Miguel Cervantes
You're embarrassing yourse...@ Miguel Cervantes<br /><br />You're embarrassing yourself. <br />Such assertions, even if humorously rhymed, do nothing to prove your allegations, and further, especially due to the manner in which you indulge in them, expose you as a troll.<br /> <br />No doubt you have some intense feelings and intuitions on the matter. However, they don't avail much in terms of evidence, for others, certainly, but also in your case. <br /><br />If positing the identity of all of these posters (some of them, like Mr. Green, being here for a decade) is your way of explaining why people react to you the way they do, have you considered other explanations. Maybe this has something to do with your postings? <br /><br />Try thinking about your experience here without resorting to your theory. Thomas Gavisushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15291566449128189887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22139465373512583082021-04-27T06:16:46.969-07:002021-04-27T06:16:46.969-07:00I was just wondering what the view here was on cli...I was just wondering what the view here was on climate change and "species extinction". <br /><br />Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to possible Thomist interpretations of how society should relate to these changes. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74181920164805281772021-04-27T04:40:32.657-07:002021-04-27T04:40:32.657-07:00 Over at Reasonable Faith, a Thomist has just aske... Over at Reasonable Faith, a Thomist has just asked a question about religious language - Question of the week 729; Divine Simplicity. In his reply, William Lane Craig is quite critical of the Thomist conception of God.<br /><br /> Would someone like to critique his response for the benefit of beginers here please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37845651658749483842021-04-27T01:13:06.630-07:002021-04-27T01:13:06.630-07:00We are not one person. We are not a lie. Not to ma...We are not one person. We are not a lie. Not to make matters worse, we don’t often deny; Police others here? Run the combox? We have no time to spare from the school of hard knocks!Anonymous, Greg S, DavidXYZ, Unknown, Dont’t Feed The Trolls, Thomas Gavisus, BenG, George, JoeD, Cervantes is a creep, Anticervantes, Mr Green and all the rest.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19114794659230744382021-04-25T21:50:57.807-07:002021-04-25T21:50:57.807-07:00@ Thomas Gavisus
"The invasion of Afghanista...@ Thomas Gavisus <br />"The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were both clear military victories,...."<br /><br />As Mao Tse Tung famously stated: <b>"Politics is war without bloodshed. War is politics with bloodshed."</b><br /><br />If the goal of one is not matched with the goal of the other, then that enterprise is a failure, a defeat, no matter how you cut it.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89371212863187671712021-04-25T21:42:38.538-07:002021-04-25T21:42:38.538-07:00'Holy truth' just means there is a great b...'Holy truth' just means there is a great big hole, a massive orifice where truth should be found. <br /><br />The truth is the truth, is the truth. No need to qualify it unless it is a recondite form of truth that cannot stand on its own merit, value, and worth. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42713632605246295132021-04-25T16:34:58.705-07:002021-04-25T16:34:58.705-07:00The Moral Nature Of Man Argument.
If God creates ...The Moral Nature Of Man Argument.<br /><br />If God creates mankind, God must design mankind.<br />Including mankind's moral nature.<br />God has three choices for our moral nature. A bad moral nature, an indifferent moral nature, or a good moral nature.<br />We have no free will, our free will is constrained by our God given moral nature.<br />Why would a perfectly good, impeccable, perfectly moral God choose other than to give all mankind a good moral nature? A very good moral nature? Then why is there so much moral evil in this world God created?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87668544410307236482021-04-25T12:02:19.620-07:002021-04-25T12:02:19.620-07:00The US and the greatest generation had very signif...The US and the greatest generation had very significant effect defeating the Nazi's in Italy and France which are both part of Europe. I never said they did it alone. Europe does owe that generation of Americans motivated by patriotism, faith and the virtue of courage and other virtues. <br /><br />Your Lend-Lease act reference doesn't effect the gratitude Europeans should have or frankly the whole world should have for the US actions in WWII. My comments were about the greatest generation, not the actions of the US after WWII. You seem to be limited to a legal fog in your view of gratitude naturally owed for a great accomplishment which changed the course of human civilization protecting our freedoms. As we have discussed your atheism and materialist view of reality seems to be hampering your as you call it "sanctity of truth". Do you mean sancity in terms of holy truth or is your definition of sancity of truth based on your subjective historical judgement?Ghostmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04107835190626272125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51993695122499976582021-04-25T05:25:13.066-07:002021-04-25T05:25:13.066-07:00Yes, I will work on spacing my paragraphs. Well, w...Yes, I will work on spacing my paragraphs. Well, we played football together in earlier life, so that has a lot to do with our friendship. The prosyletizing comment is uncalled for. Try to restrain yurself from bigoted comments in the future or as you stated in your previous post, just terminate your discussion with me.Ghostmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04107835190626272125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9559980603052194742021-04-25T01:25:19.440-07:002021-04-25T01:25:19.440-07:00Ghostman/Cervantes
Could I request that in futur...Ghostman/Cervantes<br /><br /> Could I request that in future you space your paragraphs, as at the moment you do not even inset them , so the unfortunate reader is confronted by an extremely offputting block of text, often made worse by your tendency to waffle on for far too long. This is likely to cause many people to either skip read what you have written, or just ignore it frankly.<br /><br /> I find it hard to believe that you have a genuine friend ( in oppose to a contact or colleague say ) of liberal disposition, as I would have thought that there would be almost no commonalities between you and that he would find your dogmatic certainty and prosyletizing quite insufferable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86373628664657284432021-04-24T21:03:14.274-07:002021-04-24T21:03:14.274-07:00Part III
> You are attempting to say that there...Part III<br />> You are attempting to say that there is no gratuitous evil in the world because all instances of evil in the world are accounted for, on a Thomistic philosophy of nature.<br /><br />That would actually only apply to natural evil and it would apply to moral evil in such that a moral evil actor has to express will which is "being in act" which is in and of itself good even if moved toward a disordered end.<br /><br />Proportional good has no meaning apart from moral evaluation. You cannot plead the life of a tiger is more or less that the life of a child without morality. That is just a fact.<br />So this amounts to just trying to ad hoc make God a moral agent to resurrect the POE.<br /><br />> Moral evil does not result in flourishing by its very nature. <br /><br />Category mistake. The moral dimension is of a different category then the mere natural which doesn’t involve rational intellective processes which is physical nor immaterial like the intellect and will. God does bring about good and one could say God brings about greater proportionate good by allowing morally evil acts by evil doers. These are the greater goods of God either imposing Divine Justice on the moral transgression of the evil doer or divine mercy and redemption upon the evil doer who moved by grace repents. Which by yer proportion standard is clearly a greater good than the evil performed. <br /><br />So clearly yer argument fails. <br /><br />Proportionate good has no meaning apart from the moral dimension. Without a moral argument you cannot favor the child’s life over the tiger. Moral Agents who are members of the human society must by their <br />obligations not allow tigers to eat children even at the expense of the tiger’s life as in the human community (Which God is not a member of as Davis correctly argues) children have proportionately more value then mere tigers.<br /><br />>Proportionate good certainly has a place outside of moral theology.<br /><br />But not on the natural level since God not being a moral agent is not obligated to save the child from being eaten by the tiger or prevent the child’s escape so the tiger won’t starve. God values the child more than the tiger obviously in so much as God gave the Child a soul and eternal life after the Tiger eats him/her and the tiger well it just dies at the end if it starves and its body feeds the worms. God owes neither of them anything and they both are the unmerited recipients of His Charity by existing. <br /><br />>A) God cannot will to allow evil and not bring at least some good from it or (B) God cannot will to allow evil and not bring a proportionate good from it ?<br /><br />Which in terms of natural goods God clearly does in nature as nature evil come from the fact physical things compete with other things for their being in a material world. Proportion doesn’t enter into the natural world which doesn’t involve morality which is a rational function. Allowing moral evil however has God allowing it to bring about the greater proportionate goods of divine justice or divine redemption<br /><br />So Davies has pretty much solved it. Or better yet basically the problem of evil isn’t a real problem.<br /><br />Davies solves it the same way the WHOPPER Computer solved the problem of winning at nuclear war. “The only winning move is not to play”. Theodicy presupposes morally justifying a moral agent God. God is not a moral agent in the first place. Next!<br /><br />Cheers Tom I am more convinced than ever yer wrong but that is Ok Cheers and God Bless..Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10302683023650102762021-04-24T21:01:48.897-07:002021-04-24T21:01:48.897-07:00part II
>Notice that this definition is compati...part II<br />>Notice that this definition is compatible with any understanding of evil (privation theory or otherwise).<br /><br />I accept this but the example you attempt to make in regards to moral evil will fail because it is a complete category mistake. But I am getting ahead of myself.<br /><br />>Therefore, an atheist can argue that there are instances of gratuitous evil in the world.<br /><br />No he can’t since odds are he would not have any objective philosophical or metaphysical definition of good or evil and as such his objection will be either ambiguous or trivial. He would have to show withing the Scholastic Metaphysical framework this is true and he can no more do that then he could make a convincing mathematical proof 2+2=5. The axioms of math won’t let him and final causality won’t let him do that<br />with God.<br /><br />>Saying that God is not a moral agent is not sufficient to reply to this problem. The problem emerges out of your statement "God cannot permit evil and not bring good out of it as that would be contrary to His nature."<br /><br />The former is trivially true at best as I explained. The later is concluded given what is known via natural theology about the divine nature. <br /><br />>But this depends on what you mean by God must bring out of evil some good. If you mean any good whatsoever, then you have a point.<br /><br />All goods are equal before God as goods and God Himself is Goodness Itself and all that is good has God as its cause. So any good produced whatsoever is by definition good enough. <br /><br />>On the other hand, if God, by his nature, must bring about a proportionate good, then the Davies problem doesn't do much work for your argument.<br /><br />Except without morality I can’t choose between the tiger vs the child? <br /><br />>But this is a red herring. You keep acting as if I am trying to defend the problem of evil.<br /><br />That is what it looks like you are doing? There is nothing wrong with a Theist playing devil’s advocate. Geez man even Rowe has defended the validity of a few philosophical arguments for God’s existence. I believe Graham Oppy once wrote a paper arguing Stephen Hawkings “No Boundtry Proposal” does NOT mandate Atheism(& those two are Atheists). Aquinas didn’t think the Ontological Argument of Anslem was valid and he was still a Theist.<br /><br />I dina understand why yer fash’in? I recognized yer a theist.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80048373760893038732021-04-24T20:59:03.270-07:002021-04-24T20:59:03.270-07:00Tom so many mistakes. Where to begin?
>I have...Tom so many mistakes. Where to begin?<br /><br />>I have simply made the claim that the Davies point, i.e. that "God is not a moral agent" is not sufficient to solve the problem of evil.<br /><br />At best that is trivially true if you mean merely stating “God is not a moral agent” without explaining the background philosophy and metaphysics fails to solve the problem of evil. Of course it doesn’t which is why <br />Davies wrote a few books on the subject and published many articles on the subject. You cannot argue complex subject with sound bites.<br /><br />>I have granted that most contemporary philosophers present the problem within a moral framework and therefore theodicies and defenses are presented in that framework as well.<br /><br />Actually as Davies pointed out ALL OF THEM DO. That is just a historical fact. The term Theodicy is no older that Leibnez who made it up and used it exclusively to refer to moral justification for God’s immediate inaction against many evils. The term literally means “Justification for God” & when applied to the problem of Evil it exclusively means the moral dimension. Some Scholastics have used the term to refer to theses 22-24 of the 24 Thomistic Thesis but if you look those up they don’t at all refer to the problem of evil but the justification for our belief in God’s existence.<br /><br />http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm<br /><br />So far I have not seen a coherent argument fromm you that the problem of evil can be divorced from the moral framework. Not without incoherence or at best triviality. Being is convertible with good and evil is a privation of being. <br /><br />>This means, gratuitous evil is logically incompatible with God. Gratuitous evil here is defined as a case of evil in which no good is brought out of it.<br /><br />Well “Nothing existing at all” is incompatible with God who is Existence Itself and gives new meaning to the phrase “Nothing is impossible”. There is really no such thing as any evil that God allows that God doesn’t bring good out of in some fashion. You might as well speak of God creating a world where 2+2=5 being incompatible with His nature. This is all trivially true. So what?<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com