https://m.soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/prof-edward-feser-why-believ...
A solid talk by Dr. Feser, a well respected Thomist. He doesn't lay out the first mover argument in the same way as Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas, but it is still in line with their thinking. I would summarize it, but he lays out the argument much better than I could. That being said, I am happy to defend what he said.
I would suggest listening to it in the car or something. If you are an atheist because you haven't seen any good proof for the existence of God, then this video might change that.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Bullshit!
appeals to classical logic
inaccurate statements about the big bang theory
non-sense about change without time
non-sense about power without time
And I only made it about 20 mins into it.
The Big Bang theory is irrelevant to his argument as he demonstrates.
He is using change in the sense of a potential being actualized. A thing has power in so far as it can actualize a potential. It's not nonsense. A desk can only hold something up in so far as it is held up and so on. The potential of a cup to be held up in the air is actualized by the desk which it is on.
You haven't heard his whole argument yet. 20 minutes in he has astablished a few premises but not all of them.
Referring to the speech, not you personally, when people start to use phrases like "Actualize a potential" they are teetering very close to a "What is the sound of one hand clapping" sort of philosophy. Basically, a bunch of words strung together that, while grammatically correct, don't really say much of anything.
What if a cup was held up by the desk, but before the desk was put under it? Would the cup still be 'actualizing a potential'?
Your question doesn't really make sense. Do you mean the desk would be actualizing the potential for the cup to be held up? If so then I say yes, but I don't know how the desk would hold up the cup unless maybe a person stood on it and held the cup out so the desk wasn't directly under it or something.
Yeah, my question wasn't really phrased right.
I guess closer to what I'm asking would be more like..... If an effect occurs before a cause, what is be actualized? Or would that no longer apply?
If an effect occurs before a cause, then it is not the effect of that cause. Maybe an example would help me understand you?
Perhaps you are right; I don't have a formal copy of his argument, but it sure seemed he was appealing to it. He references a written handout several times that I don't have. It would be nice to have.
--------------------------------
A garbage premise can not be fixed by adding another.
--------------------------------
Does that happen instantly?
What he says up that point is empirical fact and philosophically provable.
It can I guess. Maybe it would be better to say that change occurred in regards to a cup being held up.
Change without time? Think about that:
The simplest example of change I can think of is when an object that has attribute A=a at time 1, and then has attribute A=b at time 2; where a ≠ b. Or in other words, attribute A changed from a to b between time 1 and time 2. Without time, the whole idea of change is non-sense. So tell us how change without time is an empirical fact, and philosophically provable (whatever the hell that means).
Your quibbling over semantics and not over content. A change (in his sense of the word) has occurred when a cup is on a desk. It had the potential to be on the desk and now it is. What content of his do you have a problem with?
Time is a dimension that change requires. When you say change without time; its like talking about a square circle. You're so far out in left field it isn't even really wrong; it is insane. It isn't semantics, the content is quite insane.
Does he say that change occurs without time somewhere in the audio?
Around the 20 min mark. And around the 30:00 min mark.
Paraphrasing what he says around the 20 minute mark: change is the actualization of a potential. In the hierarchical series of a cup being held by desk which held up by a floor etc. a potential is actualized.
So from what he said we can deduce that he means change has occurred since a potential has been and is being actualized. He is not saying further or at least not a different change is occurring at one moment in time when the cup is on the desk at position X compared to another moment of time when it is at that same position.
His main point is that the desk and all of the intermediate member of the casual series only have a derivative power to hold the cup in the air.
Come on! do you really think that there could be an atheist who knows what the hell are potentiality and actuality?! I have worked my ass off in order to teach them the difference between contingency and necessity and yet they couldn't have a grasp of anything, and all I get were responses that either denote infinite stupidity or infinite stubbornness. it's like to be talking about global warming with livestock. the mere conception of contingency and necessity is enough to judge that there is a necessary being, the fact that all what is accidental must regress to what is essential is enough to know that there is such a being. but atheists don't know shit about these things, don't want to know about them, and don't want to acknowledge that these things prove god's existence. so, it's not a matter of absence of evidence as they falsely claim, but it's a matter of absence of a will to acknowledge. they simply don't want to believe in a god, they don't want it to be the case that there is a god. so do not waste your time with these scum. the only use of atheists is to snapshot their words and laugh at them with your friends.
@peripatetic: That, or you have failed to submit a convincing argument.
Lol, that's why I posted audio instead of writing down the arguments myself.
Just because it is possible to create a thought problem that confines a question to only one possible solution does not mean that reality must conform to that one possible solution.
@Dumb Ox
then good luck with this idiot.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@P
Oh the irony. I've been called an idiot by an arrogant moron. What does that make me? Could you explain the potentialities and actualities of this causal chain? Perhaps someone here cares what you think.
It doesn't make you anything. You are an Ignoramus idiot not because I called you so, but because that's what You're, it's an essential property of you. you are an idiot in yourself irrespective of something else.
No, that's way too intellectually advanced for a little atheist mind like yours to comprehend.
Even if anyone care, it'd still be useless, you guys have the LOWEST level of intelligence ever. thus, I'd rather laugh at you than explain anything to you <3
Peripathetic:
Hah! Looks like I touched a nerve and made you angry enough to descend to insults, including a sweeping categorization of atheists as unintelligent. You're a fine philosopher, aren't you. I've known some real philosophers over the years in various universities, but none of them had your arrogant temper. I think it's a sign of immaturity and profound self-doubt.
peripatetic
You have failed to prove a god is real.
@Peripatetic
You actually have to show proof in order to prove something.
In case you have been confused for all these years Bobby from your math problems in middle school never really bought 100 watermelons.
Also from reading your posts I get a very strange feeling you have a lot of talks with animals.Oh wait I get it in the bible a snake could talk so you are convinced your livestock talk to you too!!
Proofs are only for people who are intellectual, not for atheists. so when you learn some logic I might think to discuss it with you <3
you should look at the new forums in the debate room.
@ paripatetic
Please define your usage of the word intellectual. I'd like to better understand what you are saying.
CyberLN:
You should know that it's impossible to be atheist and intellectual. Only stupid, ignorant people like Simone de Beauvoir, Jeremy Bentham, Albert Camus, John Dewey, Umberto Eco, Michel Foucault, David Hume, Lucretius, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Willard Quine, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Mikhail Bakunin become atheists.
It will be interesting to see if he answers my question.
Pages