Your attempts at diversion are truly pathetic as you have not addressed a single point I raised. But let’s see what happens without any of the polemics.
trulyenlightened wrote: So is it Aristotle's logic that all objects falling to earth, merely YEARN to be a part of the Earth correct? Or, is it that objects slow down once in motion, not because of friction or gravity, but because they just get tired the correct answer? This 4th century logic may still be logical today for you, but it is still wrong today for me.
To put it as charitably as I possibly can, you are confusing Aristotle’s physics with his metaphysics. First, the fact that his physics turned out to be wrong does not follow that his metaphysics are also wrong. Second, no one has ever mentioned, no less used, Aristotle’s physics in any of the arguments here or elsewhere so why are you? I could venture a guess but I promised no polemics.
trulyenlightened wrote: The third alternative to any false-dichotomies is, "I don't know" or "unknown at this time".
But by that logic then any claim is made into a false dichotomy. Adding the alternative of “I don’t know” to any truth claim will take us nowhere but to extreme skepticism.
trulyenlightened wrote: You must first prove that no other possibility CAN exist, before you can claim that none does exist. You can't also make a truth claim, and then tell others to simply prove that your claim is false. You are the one with the burden of proof for your own claim. Try actually attending the philosophy class, to avoid this confusion in the future.
Lol, that’s really rich but anyway …
The PSR is a well-established principle which states a very basic truth: everything must have a reason. The principle, when properly applied, is all encompassing, covering not only truths, but also facts and events. Together with the principle of non-contradiction, they form the logical basis for reality. So how does one go about proving the principle ‘everything must have a reason’? Well, one way is to list every reason for every truth, fact, or event. Clearly that’s impossible (unless, of course, one is an eternal, immaterial, immutable, omnipotent entity). Another way is to disprove the PSR is by showing a truth, fact, or event without a reason. But that’s either self-contradictory or leads to a brute force fact, truth or event and, as we all know, brute force facts have no explanatory power whatsoever.
Might the alternative be ‘I don’t know’ to avoid a perceived false dichotomy? Assuming one exists, ‘I don’t know’ is no alternative as, the same with a brute force fact, it has no explanatory power and therefore can be rejected as an alternative.
If you have another alternative please provide it.
trulyenlightened wrote: It is amazing how you create the straw man, and then accuse me of using it, just to advance your own argument. This is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Quote or demonstrate anywhere in my thread that I presented an argument that even included infinite regression, or that everything has a cause. Do you even know what a straw man argument really is? Obviously not.
Where did you say everything has a cause? Let me quote you (with links to the posts):
trulyenlightened wrote:Where on my thread do I state that Aquinas said that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE or that EVERYTHING MOVES? Spare me the straw man. But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause. It is irrelevant who states these obvious facts. Don
Note the underlined.
And here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=230399
trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions. Without objective evidence, the premises are statements that only sound good and sound logical. I also do not wish to continue arguing against the 4th century logic of the time. It would almost be intellectually insulting. Since I haven't read Eddy's take, maybe you can paraphrase or contrast his position. Your basic explanation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason should be, that everything must have a reason/explanation, and a cause. But close enough! Were you making some point, or just more editorializing? Don
Also note the underlined, which you added to my definition of the PSR precisely to make it look like everything must have a cause.
These are at least 2 instances where you clearly stated what you deny. I expect a retraction.
trulyenlightened wrote:And while you are trying to come up with another straw man to blame on me, maybe you can answer a simple question, O' wise one. Since motion is not an intrinsic property of matter, and all matter is in motion, and all motion is relative to the observer and a function of time, how is the infinite regression of motion even applicable? You have no idea do you? Do you know why light is not affected by motion from any reference point, or even what the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment imply? Of course not. Did you even read my explanation of how particles pop in and out of reality WITHOUT A CAUSE. Do you understand why matter do NOT create matter(its energy)? So why would I want you to restate your position???
Now you’re attributing to me the argument of infinite regression of motion when it is precisely that which I said is irrelevant to my argument? And whatever happened to your alternative of ‘I don’t know’? Evidently, you’ve now substituted it with ‘WITHOUT A CAUSE’. Either way though, no cause or no knowledge amounts to the same thing, no explanatory power, therefore, nothing is explained.
trulyenlightened wrote: A "prime mover" cannot exist because motion is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, relativity, and the fact that the entire Universe is in motion.
The fact that entire universe is in motion is irrelevant to my argument. In fact, I can stipulate not only that the universe is in motion, but also that matter and energy always existed, that there is the possibility this is one of an infinite number of universes or multi-verses extending back to infinity. That’s all stipulated. And yet it changes nothing with the argument from motion/change.
I’ve mentioned it many times already (contrary to what you claim) but here it is again: Aquinas’ first way concerns itself with essentially ordered causal series, in the here and now. A simple example would be you holding a stick and pushing a rock with it. The rock moves as a result of the stick striking it, the stick moves as a result of your muscles contracting, the muscles contract because of certain neurons firing in your brain, and neurons fire due to a conscious decision to do so. The entire series of events is a non-starter unless you actually pick up the stick and push the rock. That’s one example. Another would be a moving train with a number of cars. Without the engine car pulling all other cars the train’s motion would not even start. Every event in the series depends on every other event but unless there is a first cause the entire event doesn’t happen, making an infinite regress of causes impossible. If you notice, the argument here is a first cause is necessary, ergo no infinite regress, not the other way around.
trulyenlightened wrote: Even as a skeptic, I would expect more from any Christian. Don
It’s not your skepticism I have an issue with, I welcome it. It’s your willful ignorance. Don’t go running claiming ad hominim, I’m not trying to insult you but when you dismiss metaphysical claims because faulty physics that tells me not only you don’t know what you’re talking about, but worse, that you’re unwilling to learn.
trulyenlightened wrote: So, are you going to keep me in the dark, or hide behind some kind of exclusive knowledge? What special type of motion do you know that I don't? How does virtual particles popping in and out of reality lead to an infinite regression. Did you know that there are particles in you that are also theoretically on the moon and part of someone else at the same time? Did you also know that 73% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, 3.5% Hydrogen and Helium(stars), and guess what--all matter and us compose 0.O4% of the entire Universe. From these facts it would appear that we are only the accidental byproducts of the Universe(how's that for irony?). Don
You can think all of this is an accident but you’ve not answered why it’s this accident and not some other, or why there is any accident at all to begin with. In other words, you’ve not satisfied the PSR. Now it is your prerogative to adopt a worldview with “I don’t know”s and without any fundamental explanation of reality. But if you do, please don’t go claiming true enlightenment. The two are mutually contradictory.