It is like a child who is taking a tantrum when told he must share his toy with other children. He keeps insisting it's not fair, it's not fair. But when the teacher points out that sharing is what fairness is all about, he sticks his fingers in his ears and cries out 'it's not fair, it's not fair'.
This person has no interest in a fair discussion, does not properly respond to posts, let alone bother to read them. I mean, how many times did I and others actually show him that Aquinas denies using temporal infinite regress in his arguments? And yet, Mr. "professor" keeps insisting that he does. 'It's no fair, it's no fair'.
And even after admitting that his PSR argument fails, he still does not have the intellectual honesty to admit its implication of an absolute necessity.
I have no reason to believe this person will ever engage in an honest discussion. I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish, i.e. prove the PSR, and answer his fallacious arguments against Aquinas.
Let his own words convict him, I will not waste another second of my time on him any more. I am done with this fraud.
trulyenlightened wrote: Only WHAT I say is what is important. I do not claim to be all-knowing, so spare me your demeaning and personal attacks. I don't claim that what I say is the absolute truth. I only claim that what I say is consistent with what I observe and understand. So far you have done absolutely nothing to change that understanding. Is your only motive here to discredit, demean, and dismiss anything that I say? Do you believe that others may need your protection? There is a word to describe people who think like that. I have never been stalked and harassed for presenting intellectual and logical consistencies before. It takes more than just arrogance, insecurity, and a fragile ego, to appoint oneself as the chosen one to show me the errors of my way. There are many words to describe this kind of mindset, and none would mean being "intellectually honest". I could very well be wrong about any philosophical semantical mumbo jumbo that comes out of my mouth. Could you? That is where we are different. Hence, the constant avoidance, referrals, blatant misrepresentations, and logical fallacies, seems only to shift the burden of proof and save face. Yours is an argument that is entirely predicated on the fact that no one can prove a negative. No one can ever disprove that an immovable mover, uncaused cause, unactualized actualizer, etc., exists. Anymore than they can prove that they do exist. But NOT being able to prove that something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that something in fact does exist by default. The burden of proof is on you.
Can't I simply stipulate that I mostly agree with the principles of PSR? I avoid metaphysical and philosophical arguments, because there are no clear correct or incorrect arguments. It seems to be just endless defining, redefining of definition as they apply to words. It is a self-serving exercise in semantics, that seem to give an unwarranted perception of unnecessary complexity and importance to an argument. It seems to be a self-serving mental indulgence to confirm any preconceptual presuppositional bias. Fortunately, I have no preconceptions of PSR. I am not saying that there is no such thing as contingent facts(truth). Or, that contingent facts can't be anything otherwise than what they are. I'm saying that necessary facts(truths) can't be used to prove contingent facts, because necessary facts can't be anything other than what they are. Not only could there be more than just one necessary fact describing a single cause, but to determine which necessary cause resulted in the event would be impossible. I also agree with causality as well. All things are caused by something else. Nothing can cause itself. To me it is irrelevant what label you want to affix to the types of causation or facts. I also agree that PSR is fundamental in its use in the scientific method. Regarding your syllogism, we are talking about deductive logic. Your conclusion should be deduced from your premises. If not your premises are wrong. Therefore,
If A, B, and C are true(obtained), then I am sitting.
A, B, and C ARE true(obtained)
Therefore, I am sitting
By stating that you are not sitting, you contradict your deduction. Since you didn't define what A, B, and C were, how did you concluded that you are not sitting? Therefore, your premises and conclusion is false. I think I know what you are trying to say, using suppositions and assumptions, but you are just saying it so badly. The physical laws that govern our Universe can't be ignored, or replaced with gap-filling self-serving subjective logic. All explanations of physical or contingent causes, must obey these natural laws. No causal object or thing in the physical Universe, can possess zero entropy, zero energy, zero motion, or zero momentum, no matter what argument you wish to present. Even if an object or cause like this did exist, it could not exist in this Universe, let alone effect anything in this Universe. PSR is merely a logical series of proofs to justify causality, and possibly that the Universe had a beginning. Again, I have no problems with that.
Let me put this in my own words, to avoid your silly distractions, avoidance, and to focus on anything other than the points I raised. I have said repeatedly that I only wish to talk about science to those that are interested in science. Or, to try and understand how science supports, or is supported by any religious belief. I am not a theologian or a philosopher. I generally stick to the things that I consider practical and useful. How do you know that, "The new atheist movement has sparked a renewed interest in natural philosophy, natural theology and classical theism for a reason"? Was there an old Atheist movement that with no interest in Philosophy, Theism, or Theology? Why would an Atheist expect to find answers in Theism? Any philosophy that can explain everything, explains nothing. It may be true that many atheist are concerned by the rationale of having Christian belief, becoming a part of the science curriculum, in the early education of our finest minds. They might be concerned about a violation of the separation of church and state, guaranteed by the Constitution. Other than simply asserting that I am mistaken, are you suggesting that God is NOT exempt from the premises asserted in the argument? Why is this NOT an argument from ignorance, and special pleading? Other than you simply asserting that it isn't? I'll ask again, "How do any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism"? Other than posting distractions, please answer the question?
I agree that by the definition of a God, there can be only ONE God. But there isn't is there? In fact there are 8-12,000 Gods who have been worshipped throughout recorded history. And, their worshipers felt the same way about their God(s), as you feel about your God. Do you know what was the best explanation I heard to account for this phenomenon? "They'll all find out that we are right and they are wrong, once they die". Maybe you can do better? "The unmoved mover, uncaused cause, non-contingent absolute necessity, unactualized actualizer is, by definition, absolutely unique whose essence IS his existence are identical and who is susbtistent existence itself that fails to not have existed nor to not exist". And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, you surprise me. You make up the assumption, that if two Gods exist, "then there must be some distinguishing feature that one has and the other lacks". How on earth could you know this, and aren't you ignoring the definition of a God. If a God is ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL, how could there exist a second God that is also ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL? Remember your God is a jealous God, considering what he did to the Egyptian Gods. That makes as much sense as your assertion that weaker Gods have distinguishing attributes. If your made-up, "doctrine of divine simplicity", is exampled by "God did it all", then I agree that it is the ultimate in simplicity. Unfortunately, there is no where else to go from there, in regards to complexity. Since you claim that I am WRONG, please tell me how the argument distinguishes between, Zeus, Allah, Athena, Baku, or the Christian God? Since you can't, how am I wrong? Never mind, this will also be avoided as irrelevant.
You are correct I am not here to talk about religion and beliefs. Reason and logic are irrelevant, and not required in all matters of faith. Let me ask, did Aquinas state that there can't be an infinite regression of causality? Yes or No? Secondly, how does he, or you for that matter, know for certain that this is true? Why can't there exist a cause for all events regressing back towards infinity? Please no more "if you don't understand, I can't help you". Or, "Just another straw man argument". Since you're not pointing out the specific straw man, you are nothing more than a broken record of empty assertions. If we consider the infinite number of events necessary for you to lift and drop a pen, why not an infinite number of events for the birth of the Universe, and the Origin of Life? Never mind, I don't expect an answer.
Since you stated at the beginning that you would be addressing only what you consider as being relevant, the cherry-picking has begun. You explain nothing, you simply bark, bluff and blunder, and then try to bully your assertions down my throat. How does any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism? They don't, without the assistance of a few subjective additions and conditions. Why does any unmoved mover, or uncaused causer have to be YOUR specific God? They don't, regardless of the imaginary and impossible attributes you label as being indicative of only your God? Why is any God exempt from the natural laws in Nature(special pleading)? How do you know this, and what evidence backs this up? "The actual argument, not this silly straw man version, actually terminates with an UNMOVED mover, UNCAUSED cause, UNACTUALIZED actualizer. In other words, it is the necessary conclusion of the argument, not some arbitrary assertion". What is amazing, is that you can't see how flawed your own logic is. Necessary for whom? Maybe only for those that disagree with you?
Anyone can make up anything they like. It may intuitively make perfect sense, and may even be logically sound. But this doesn't mean that it is true. All that I am saying, is that if you want to believe that this self-serving logic is sound and supports your belief, then that is none of my business. But from a scientific perspective it is unfalsifiable, fallacious, and unsound, no matter how many times you tell me that I just don't understand it. Don