Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I believe my 9381 pertains to this discussion.

That was well after (pages) I refuted your original comments about a prime mover with the fallacy of composition. You are squirming out of your original.comments.

You said way back before post #931. Around post 9286

Originally Posted by you

No, the question at hand is can science identify a First Mover? I never said the First Mover has to be God. All I'm looking for is an uncaused cause. Therefore, since God created the universe, I'd say he's in a great position to give an account to his prophets. But many eyewitnesses does scientism does have, again?

and in no post till your 9381 ever mention Act and Potency.So 9381 minus 9286 is almost 100 posts.

Act and potency is your current misdirection. You went 100 posts not saying anything about it.

Or Explain how it relates to a prime mover. If you can

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

That was well after (pages) I refuted your original comments about a prime mover with the fallacy of composition. You are squirming out of your original.comments.

You said way back before post #931. Around post 9286

and in no post till your 9381 ever mention Act and Potency.So 9381 minus 9286 is almost 100 posts.

Act and potency is your current misdirection. You went 100 posts not saying anything about it.

Or Explain how it relates to a prime mover. If you can

Oh...so you're whining like a baby because I haven't mentioned it until recently? Talk about moving the goal posts. In the majority of those posts I kept asking you to apply Aquinas' argument to your dumb syllogism in your own words, which I knew you would never do. So, then you point me to a vid that talks about "cause and effect" and claim that the vid refutes Aquinas, but Cause and Effect are NOT the warp 'n' woof of Aquinas' argument; and I when I bring this to your attention, you whine like a little brat because the vid is a non sequitur!?

You're as crazy as Light 'n' Loafers.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have a question for our resident "enlightened one" who has conquered ego and mind -- except, of course, in Trump's case. Mr. Light, here is a parable by your "best friend". Then I have a question for you. But take very careful and particular note that is a kingdom parable.

Matt 20:1-16
20 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 "And when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 "And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; 4 and to those he said, 'You too go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And so they went. 5 "Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. 6 "And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; and he said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?' 7 "They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into the vineyard.' 8 "And when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.' 9 "And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. 10 "And when those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; and they also received each one a denarius. 11 "And when they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying,' These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' 13 "But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 'Take what is yours and go your way, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?' 16 "Thus the last shall be first, and the first last."
NASB

My question, Mr. Light is this: Do you agree with Jesus or not that the landowner acted justly (fairly) toward all his workers?

Yes. This coincides with Jesus's "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God. What's your point?

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I do not condemn anyone to hell. I am only the messenger and have no power or authority to condemn anyone.

Baloney. You consider yourself an "ambassador" to God, remember? Oh you don't have the power, but you believe you have the "recommendations" and "influence".

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have categorically denied the actual existence of Good and Evil. You have told us that Evil, for example, is a mere illusion. Therefore, Trump's "immoral" acts are merely illusions that exist in your own warped mind. And here you had nearly everyone believing you rose above mind -- you rose far above ego -- you are the "enlightened one" who truly knows what reality is. You are so freaking enlightened and filled with spiritual wisdom that if Jesus walked the earth today, you would disciple him and straighten him out about all the misconceptions he had during his first visit and correct him with the teachings of Buddha.

The ramblings of a Madman^^^^

Originally Posted by boxcar

By definition, Mr. Light, for an act to be "immoral" (i.e. not moral) means that someone's behavior or conduct does not conform to principles or standards of Right and Wrong (a/k/a Good and Evil).

How old are you,like 2yo? You still haven't learned that "good" and "evil" are relative? Whose "standards" are we using? Like Trump said the other day, "Go back to school".

Originally Posted by boxcar

It appears, Mr. Light, that you are demonized, and need an exorcism in the worst way to rid your mind of the deception of Good and Evil that an evil entity obviously has planted therein.

Thanks for your concern.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Baloney. You consider yourself an "ambassador" to God, remember? Oh you don't have the power, but you believe you have the "recommendations" and "influence".

The ramblings of a Madman^^^^


How old are you,like 2yo? You still haven't learned that "good" and "evil" are relative? Whose "standards" are we using? Like Trump said the other day, "Go back to school".

Thanks for your concern.

I didn't know you use any standards since you have said that Good and Evil are illusions. Are you denying that you have said this? Or are you another one with a selectively poor memory when you get yourself entangled in your own web of deceit?

In fact, I'll take it a step further: You have also said that mind is an illusion! So, tell us when you judge that Trump's border policies are "immoral" do you do that in your non-existent mind -- or perhaps with some part of your non-existent physical anatomy that isn't polite to mention in public?

And finally, the [so-called] ethical philosophy of moral relativism is thoroughly self-defeating! Tell us, Mr. Light, by what standard outside of yourself do you judge Trump's immigration policies to be "immoral"? If none, then all you're really implying is: What is good for Trump may not be good for me, but alas, this isn't saying very much, since this statement, according to your own view of morality, would have to apply to everyone, which, of course, would mean that what is good for Light may not be so good for someone else either. Can you now see what a moronic, absurd, self-contradictory ethical system moral relativism is?

I thoroughly demolished Moral Relativism nearly four years ago in the original Religious thread (post 17680 dated 3/13/15). I shook this insipid, absurd philosophy every way but loose. Its' one of the most intellectually impoverished philosophies ever invented by fallen man. But I'm not surprised at all that you subscribe to it, even though Natural Revelation itself (reality as we all know it to be) categorically rejects it!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Yes. This coincides with Jesus's "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God. What's your point?

Where is Caesar and God in the parable? And who in this kingdom parable is Caesar and God?

And when Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is His", was he teaching the Jewish religious authorities to be fair to Caesar and to God? Or was he teaching them to be diligent in administering their duty to even two higher authorities than themselves?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...so you're whining like a baby because I haven't mentioned it until recently? Talk about moving the goal posts. In the majority of those posts I kept asking you to apply Aquinas' argument to your dumb syllogism in your own words, which I knew you would never do. So, then you point me to a vid that talks about "cause and effect" and claim that the vid refutes Aquinas, but Cause and Effect are NOT the warp 'n' woof of Aquinas' argument; and I when I bring this to your attention, you whine like a little brat because the vid is a non sequitur!?

The video I posted uses Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion"
Philosophy of Religion
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml

That's why I told you the transference of inertia from one object to another, can not be logically extrapolated to the origins of the universe as a whole.

In other words The proper use of the fallacy of composition.

Please note although you could not explain "Act and Potency" in your own words, this article does a decent job.....

The Argument from Motion:

Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)

Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession.

In other words, the argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence.

The Argument from Motion:

Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)
Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality. (An actual oak tree is what produces the potentitality of an acorn.)
Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take away the potential. (Hence, which came first for Aristotle, the chicken or the egg?)

This medieval poor understanding of motion and inertia is a crude example of modern concept of kinetic and potential energy, and neither does that prove the existence of a prime mover. Or an uncased cause.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The video I posted uses Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion"
Philosophy of Religion
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml

That's why I told you the transference of inertia from one object to another, can not be logically extrapolated to the origins of the universe as a whole.

In other words The proper use of the fallacy of composition.

Please note although you could not explain "Act and Potency" in your own words, this article does a decent job.....


This medieval poor understanding of motion and inertia is a crude example of modern concept of kinetic and potential energy, and neither does that prove the existence of a prime mover. Or an uncased cause.

I was well aware of that article. I have it in my own files; but I would not waste my time explaining it to you or posting the article because it would be lost on you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I was well aware of that article. I have it in my own files; but I would not waste my time explaining it to you or posting the article because it would be lost on you.

Hugh? I just posted it bunky, and explained it to you!
Wake up bro' and drink some coffee

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hugh? I just posted it bunky, and explained it to you!
Wake up bro' and drink some coffee

What part of my last post didn't you get. All I said was is that I have that article in my own personal computer files! Therefore, I was well aware of it!

Moreover, Humpty, I have Dr. Edward Feser's book that I cited yesterday, and he goes into even greater detail of the Aquinas Motion argument. In short, I have forgotten more about the philosophy of Realism than you will ever know.

So...get Real already.

[hcap]

One more time.

This medieval poor understanding of motion and inertia is a crude example of modern concept of kinetic and potential energy, and neither does that prove the existence of a prime mover. Or an uncased cause.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of my last post didn't you get. All I said was is that I have that article in my own personal computer files! Therefore, I was well aware of it!

Moreover, Humpty, I have Dr. Edward Feser's book that I cited yesterday, and he goes into even greater detail of the Aquinas Motion argument. In short, I have forgotten more about the philosophy of Realism than you will ever know.

So...get Real already.

It is obvious you will not admit you do not understand how the medieval crude notions of motion and causality of Aquinas and even older Aristotle, must be updated.

And why you can not prove a prime mover or god.
The burden of proof is still yours

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

It is obvious you will not admit you do not understand how the medieval crude notions of motion and causality of Aquinas and even older Aristotle, must be updated.

And why you can not prove a prime mover or god.
The burden of proof is still yours

Aquinas' argument needs no update.

Furthermore, Humpty, whether you postulate a finite universe, as Einstein, did, or an eternal universe as your bud Dumpty has, you run into a brick wall, regardless which poison you choose.

If the universe IS eternal and has no beginning or end, then this means that all that universe IS -- all that the universe entails -- all that it includes -- all that it embraces -- can never come into or out of existence. So, clearly, the empirical evidence tells us the universe is not eternal. It is not infinite.

So, now we're left with Einstein's model -- a finite universe. A universe that had a beginning and will one day end. In this atheistic materialistic model -- whatever is behind the Big Firecracker, or any other nonsense the high priests of scientism dream up, they must identity the ultimate cause of the universe. Failure to do this leads to infinite regression, which is not a rational, coherent or reasonable explanation for the the universe's existence. Infinite Regression, at the end of the day, implicitly says The Universe is because it has always been this way. This is obviously a circular proposition.

So, before you wax like an alpha gorilla on steroids and start pounding holes into your chest, just remember that you have no reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. You cannot tell us what has ultimately caused the universe's existence.

So...tell us...where does the Present lie relevant to the Past and Future in your wonky "arrow of time"?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Aquinas' argument needs no update.

Furthermore, Humpty, whether you postulate a finite universe, as Einstein, did, or an eternal universe as your bud Dumpty has, you run into a brick wall, regardless which poison you choose.

If the universe IS eternal and has no beginning or end, then this means that all that universe IS -- all that the universe entails -- all that it includes -- all that it embraces -- can never come into or out of existence. So, clearly, the empirical evidence tells us the universe is not eternal. It is not infinite.

So, now we're left with Einstein's model -- a finite universe. A universe that had a beginning and will one day end. In this atheistic materialistic model -- whatever is behind the Big Firecracker, or any other nonsense the high priests of scientism dream up, they must identity the ultimate cause of the universe. Failure to do this leads to infinite regression, which is not a rational, coherent or reasonable explanation for the the universe's existence. Infinite Regression, at the end of the day, implicitly says The Universe is because it has always been this way. This is obviously a circular proposition.

So, before you wax like an alpha gorilla on steroids and start pounding holes into your chest, just remember that you have no reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. You cannot tell us what has ultimately caused the universe's existence.

So...tell us...where does the Present lie relevant to the Past and Future in your wonky "arrow of time"?

And yet you somehow exempt yourself from everyone else who would admit " we don't know" and posit Uncle Poppycock as a "reasonable" explanation...?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Aquinas' argument needs no update.

Modern science and physics has done that and concludes no evidence for a prime mover. As it has updated so many medeival speculations like a 6000 year OLD UNIVERSE.

Your favorite absurd silliness. Or your bogus claim, children are born evil. You need a major update