(Sep 4, 2018 10:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Do you want me to do all your work for you, Syne? Go on, lazy ass. There's tons and tons of material on this subject. Spit it out or get off the podium.
I'm not asking you to do anything at all, deary. And if Yaz wanted to watch the video, he wouldn't have to rely on you for any of this.
Maybe you could tell him about Leibniz's views on the principle of sufficient reason next (also in the video).
I'm waiting for any real criticisms of the arguments given. Until then I have nothing to defend nor refute...except your repeated and unfounded ad hominems.
(Sep 4, 2018 10:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]I’m sure that Yazata is well aware of classical theism, Syne. The guy is just revisiting classical theism and discussing the the five ways.
He probably also mistakenly thinks those arguments, and more, have already been roundly refuted.
(Sep 4, 2018 04:54 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So an appeal to your intelligence just provokes more snarky bullshit.
I think you love my snarkiness. You'd miss it.
Let me guess, you never even read his book, right? You just watched YouTube interviews and
Charles Hartshorne, have you
read watched his work?
(Sep 5, 2018 12:51 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Sep 4, 2018 04:54 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So an appeal to your intelligence just provokes more snarky bullshit.
I think you love my snarkiness. You'd miss it.
Let me guess, you never even read his book, right? You just watched YouTube interviews and Charles Hartshorne, have you read watched his work?
Oh, you mean your verbal diarrhea? No, you can keep that, since it's mostly employed to avoid substantial discussion.
Never read his book, nor familiar with Hartshorne. Already familiar with the arguments being made and their counterarguments.
Why do you specifically think Hartshorne is relevant? Do you think his "becoming" refutes some assertion by Feser?
Verbal diarrhea, hah! Figure it out on your own then, dumb (_!_)
(Sep 5, 2018 01:24 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Verbal diarrhea, hah! Figure it out on your own then, dumb (_!_)
As expected, between all the ad hominems is a thin facade of intellectualism that has zero depth or support.
That's what I get for assuming anything you bring to the discussion, that sounds the least but legit, has any more significance than just scoring points.
As soon as I ask a genuine question, you immediately fall directly on your face.
Again, you have to make a definite criticism before anyone can be expected to defend or refute anything. Otherwise, I can just play devil's advocate to myself.
(Sep 5, 2018 01:50 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]As soon as I ask a genuine question, you immediately fall directly on your face.
You didn’t even bother to read his book. Do your homework and then we can discuss it.
(Sep 5, 2018 02:12 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Sep 5, 2018 01:50 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]As soon as I ask a genuine question, you immediately fall directly on your face.
You didn’t even bother to read his book. Do your homework and then we can discuss it.
Not everyone has the endless free time you seem to. That you even had to read a book for such very well-wore arguments is, itself, nothing to be proud of.
That, having read the book, you can't even manage to synthesize an argument, any argument, is telling. You may be wasting your time, deary.
(Sep 4, 2018 08:45 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't watched the video, since it apparently goes on for an hour.
Sounds like you also prefer having a transcript or something to glance over first, or to be able to look at and reference later on, in contrast to searching back and forth through a video again and manually writing down bits of it to quote. I don't know whether this exchanging of blows below between New Atheist blogger
Richard Carrier and
Edward Feser would be useful for anything or not. At first glance it might seem perverse to expect clarification to be extracted from a mêlée already in progress.
Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God: Debunked!
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752
Carrier on Five Proofs (response)
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/02/...roofs.html
I still view "proof" on paper (as opposed to, say, the perceptual and feeling confirmation of having fingers chopped off by a piece of machinery) as being a formal demonstration of an abstract construct either being internally consistent with itself or being commensurable with an already existing system which it is applying for approval / membership in (so to speak).
Rather than "proof" (in using the rules for manipulating the symbols and/or word nomenclature of an "intellectual game") meaning that a "proposal" corresponds to something that has been verified as the case, or exists, or has useful application in a concrete context. Similar to
pure mathematics lacking concern over its abstract residents corresponding to "real" or "effective" items, though the door was not closed to the possibility of many eventually finding correspondence to such.
~
(Sep 5, 2018 04:55 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently, even among academic atheists, Carrier is a joke: https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/r...ispleased/
Classic ad hominem.
(Sep 5, 2018 02:35 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Not everyone has the endless free time you seem to. That you even had to read a book for such very well-wore arguments is, itself, nothing to be proud of.
That, having read the book, you can't even manage to synthesize an argument, any argument, is telling. You may be wasting your time, deary.
Seriously? You're making fun of me for reading? I like to read. So what?
Many scholars and commenters caution in treating the Five Ways as if they were modern logical proofs. This is not to say that examining them in that light is not academically interesting.
Summa Theologica (wikipedia.org)
https://arcdigital.media/summa-theologia...f190e03e1c
[…]The intended audience of the Summa included Christian scholars and followers of certain Muslim and Jewish philosophers—all of whom accepted the existence of God. Thus, in a sense, Thomas was "preaching to the choir."
[…]It seems that Aquinas did not intend the five ways to be logical, mathematical demonstrations but arguments for something that we already accept. An examination of each of the five ways supports this conclusion.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-...ive-proofs