Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You are the madman. I am simply disagreeing with Trump. I did not condemn him to Hell. Contrast that to when you disagree with any of us, you condemn us to Hell which is what madmen do.

I do not condemn anyone to hell. I am only the messenger and have no power or authority to condemn anyone. The Word of God is what will judge you and everyone else in this world. Why are you so ignorant of the teachings of your "best friend"?

John 12:48
48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
NASB

If putting children in cages and separating them from their parents which results in unimaginable heartache does not strike you as inhumane, then I suggest you reconsider your theory that you are saved. You cannot be saved when you condone immoral acts of cruelty against God children.

(emphasis mine)

You truly are mad! You really do suffer from Chronic Cognitive Dissonance! (Contradict yourself much, do you?) 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.

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). Since you have denied the existence of Good and Evil by characterizing them as illusions, then the problem is not with Trump's behavior but with your own mind. 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.

I would strongly suggest that you fast and spend some very serious time in your prayer closest praying to your "best friend" for his forgiveness and spiritual healing. If anyone can cast out demons, he can. But you'll need to spend a great deal of time in prayer to him. (Mat 17:19-21).

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Apply Aquinas' argument to your sylly syllogism and then we'll see if you have refuted it.

As I said, Aquinas's argument is summed up in this video.

Look at the circle of "tombstones" impacting one another while the video is claiming cause and effect is a chain of events originating from an original, first or prime cause. The unmoved mover.

YouTube (Short URL)

The fallacy of composition says this chain of cause and effect within the universe can not logically be projected out onto the universe itself

Fallacy of composition

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

Cause and effect is part of the universe, but cause and effect projected onto the origins of the universe is not necessarily so

Why do I get the impression you are refusing to deal with this, Mr Miss-Director?

[hcap]

BTW, cause and effect is not a reliable or clearly understood principle on the Quantum level. Our assumptions are not always correct.

Maybe there is some validity to Aristotle and Aquinas in some way, but it certainly is not proof god created the universe or even exists.

Try again

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Well used word Light and one of my favorites.

I feel sorry for non-believers but not that much.

That's their most serious problem and leads to insanity.

There's only so much that can be done.

I have yet to find one rational, pertinent thought from you.

[Actor]

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/hell-ha...m_npd_nn_fb_ma

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

As I said, Aquinas's argument is summed up in this video.

Look at the circle of "tombstones" impacting one another while the video is claiming cause and effect is a chain of events originating from an original, first or prime cause. The unmoved mover.
https://youtu.be/lJH18VqdttY

The fallacy of composition says this chain of cause and effect within the universe can not logically be projected out onto the universe itself



Cause and effect is part of the universe, but cause and effect projected onto the origins of the universe is not necessarily so

Why do I get the impression you are refusing to deal with this, Mr Miss-Director?

It's very obvious you do not understand Aristotle philosophy of Realism, since you don't understand Aquinas' argument which is based in part on this philosophy.

The concept of Motion involves dependency and not necessarily temporal succession.

Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. The argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence.

You really should read the link that Doc sent you.

[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?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's very obvious you do not understand Aristotle philosophy of Realism, since you don't understand Aquinas' argument which is based in part on this philosophy.

The concept of Motion involves dependency and not necessarily temporal succession.

Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. The argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence.

You really should read the link that Doc sent you.

Really? Temporal or not it refers to cause and effect.
Prime mover bunky.

Ok, explain it to us

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Really? Temporal or not it refers to cause and effect.
Prime mover bunky.

Ok, explain it to us

No, it doesn't. Which proves that you don't understand Aristotle or Aquinas.

Have a nice day because if they can't convince neither will I.

Again, read what Doc sent you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, it doesn't. Which proves that you don't understand Aristotle or Aquinas.

Have a nice day because if they can't convince neither will I.

Again, read what Doc sent you.

Why can't you or doc explain it to us.

The simple video I posted does a decent job. IN OTHER WORDS YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If you did, you could.

Just another one of your misdirects on steroids.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Why can't you or doc explain it to us.

The simple video I posted does a decent job. IN OTHER WORDS YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If you did, you could.

Just another one of your misdirects on steroids.

Man, ARE YOU DENSE!!!! The "simple vid" deals with Cause and Effect. Aquinas is dealing with Act and Potency. How many times do I have to tell you this?

And I'm certainly not going to waste my time explaining something that is more complicated than the logical flow of time, which you CANNOT understand because you don't understand the difference between chronological and logical. And if you can't understand this, you will never understand Aristotle's Realism.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Man, ARE YOU DENSE!!!! The "simple vid" deals with Cause and Effect. Aquinas is dealing with Act and Potency. How many times do I have to tell you this?

And I'm certainly not going to waste my time explaining something that is more complicated than the logical flow of time, which you CANNOT understand because you don't understand the difference between chronological and logical. And if you can't understand this, you will never understand Aristotle's Realism.

You have not once in this discussion of a prime mover, mentioned Act and Potency Not once bunky. Not once.

Another misdirection mostly because you do not know what you are talking about. If you do, explain how "Act and Potency" is related to Aristotle / Aquinas's first mover you babble on about.

You can not. Your latest crapola is a futile attempt to deny the fallacy of composition refuting a prime mover.

If you can in your own words, do it now.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have not once in this discussion of a prime mover, mentioned Act and Potency Not once bunky. Not once.

Another misdirection mostly because you do not know what you are talking about. If you do, explain how "Act and Potency" is related to Aristotle / Aquinas's first mover you babble on about.

You can not. Your latest crapola is a futile attempt to deny the fallacy of composition refuting a prime mover.

If you can in your own words, do it now.

How can you say that.? I have! I have brought up now. And Doc has, too, as I recall.

Also, I have discussed Act and Potency on other occasions when discussing Dr. Feser's book "The Last Superstition - A Refutation of the New Atheism." I don't recall whether it was in this thread or in the original one.

What you need to do now is find something online that refutes Aquinas' Act - Potency argument. Cause and Effect ain't gonna cut it. Good luck with that, too. I will not waste my time with anyone who cannot or will not understand the difference between logical and chronological.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How can you say that.? I have! I have brought up now. And Doc has, too, as I recall.

Also, I have discussed Act and Potency on other occasions when discussing Dr. Feser's book "The Last Superstition - A Refutation of the New Atheism." I don't recall whether it was in this thread or in the original one.

What you need to do now is find something online that refutes Aquinas' Act - Potency argument. Cause and Effect ain't gonna cut it. Good luck with that, too. I will not waste my time with anyone who cannot or will not understand the difference between logical and chronological.

As I have said, not once during Aquinas prime mover discussion have you brought it up. Not once have you mentioned Act and Potency

If so, you should have no trouble quoting your post.
Inquiring minds wish to know.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

As I have said, not once during Aquinas prime mover discussion have you brought it up. Not once have you mentioned Act and Potency

If so, you should have no trouble quoting your post.
Inquiring minds wish to know.

I believe my 9381 pertains to this discussion.