September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Alan Chambers’s View Is Clear | Main | Challenge: Isn’t Selling Organs for Research a Good Thing? »

October 05, 2015

Comments

Daniel,

scbrownlhrm is again of course completely right - Christian metaphysics essentially means that God is a trinity consisting of "love", "logic", "mind", "personhood", "reciprocity", "the singular us" and "self", because why not?
And never forget - lying is totally cool, as long as you lie for Jesus!

Andy,


The principle of *your* paradigm's physical causality which you fallaciously employed verifiably applies to physical systems. Why would you imply that it applies to Being Itself? To God?

Can you justify that assertion and support it with Science?

With Scientism?

The principle of sufficient causality is *really* old, common, even basic, so it's just bizarre that you thought any circumscribed principle describing *your* physical causes *could* apply to *God*.

Particles cause God?

Also bizarre is your dishonesty about brain synapses and reasoning and logic, and stuff still *further* back into your means.

Andy,


"....true, like "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with", and then see that consistently applying this principle would lead to conclusions that you do not like...."


Please explain.


As I see it, either you really are ignorant, or, you're being dishonest.

scbrownlhrm

"The principle of *your* paradigm's physical causality which you fallaciously employed verifiably applies to physical systems. Why would you imply that it applies to Being Itself? To God? "
- It is not "my paradigm", it´s rather yours because this is what *you* said, not me:
"All such properties end in elimination because - as everybody knows - causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with"
- I think that this is complete BS, and all I did was point out that applying this BS *consistently* instead of arbitrarily leads to conclusions that you disagree with (like God being physical because God is allegedly the cause of some physical things or water *not* being fluid because the creation of water is not caused by anything that has the property of being fluid), and that you therefore do not actually believe this BS but rather only pretend that it is true whenever it is convenient.

"Also bizarre is your dishonesty about brain synapses and reasoning and logic, and stuff still *further* back into your means."
- Did you just have a stroke or is english your second language? In any case, this is just word salad.

Andy,

Ah. Ignorant it is then.

That's surprising given the early stages at which the principle of sufficient causality is typically taught these days.

Andy,

On brain synapses, it seems you think that's where your regress stops.

That's surprising given the early stages at which such basic building blocks are unpacked these days.

scbrownlhrm,

"Ah. Ignorant it is then. That's surprising given the early stages at which the principle of sufficient causality is typically taught these days."
- It´s actually the "principle of sufficient REASON" not "principle of sufficient causality". And if that weren´t embarrassing enough for you - the PSR doesn´t even have anything to do with the comment you replied to. But it´s cute that you call someone else "ignorant" while displaying your own ignorance in such a spectacular fashion - it´s almost as if you wanted to provide a live and exaggerated example of the Dunning-Kruger effect at work ;-)

Andy,


The principle of sufficient causality isn't the PSR.


Figured you knew etc... I'll try to find a link when time permits.

Andy,

I see your confusion now. The principle of proportionate causality is the proper term. Thats my fault for misleading you.


Replace sufficient with proportionate and, then, explain the following:


"....true, like "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with", and then see that consistently applying this principle would lead to conclusions that you do not like...."

scbrownlhrm,

"The principle of sufficient causality isn't the PSR.
Figured you knew etc... I'll try to find a link when time permits."
Of course, the "principle of sufficient causality" totally exists and totally is something completely different from the PSR. And this is of course why pretty much every single google link for "principle of sufficient causality" leads to pages talking about the "principle of sufficient reason" instead:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=principle+of+sufficient+causality
There are in total merely 250 pages in the entire www that contain the phrase "principle of sufficient causality" (compared to over a hundred thousand pages that contain the phrase "principle of sufficient reason") - and not a single one of those talk about a concept that is both a) different from the PSR and b) has any relevance for the philosophy of religion.

Seriously though, it´s quite shocking that you actually believed that anyone following this thread could be stupid enough to believe such an incredibly obvious lie.

Andy,


Yes, the principle of proportionate causality is the proper term. Thats my fault for misleading you.


Replace sufficient with proportionate and, then, explain the following:


"....true, like "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with", and then see that consistently applying this principle would lead to conclusions that you do not like...."

scbrownlhrm,

"I see your confusion now. The principle of proportionate causality is the proper term."
- Instead of being a "proper term" for anything, that rather seems to be something that Edward Feser made up and that pretty much every other philosopher on this planet ignores - it´s not discussed in any online encyclopedia of philosophy and pretty much all google hits lead to articles by Feser or people talking about Feser.

"Replace sufficient with proportionate and, then, explain the following: "....true, like "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with", and then see that consistently applying this principle would lead to conclusions that you do not like...."
- I did. If this BS is true, then water cannot have the property of being fluid, because the creation of water isn´t caused by anything that has the property of being fluid. Similarly, it could lead to the conclusion that God must have the property of being physical (or at least "implicitly" have this property - whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean) because else he couldn´t possibly be the cause of anything that has the property of being physical.

scbrownlhrm,

"On brain synapses, it seems you think that's where your regress stops."
- Which you concluded based on me never using the phrase "brain synapse" or anything like that and also never using the word "regress" or anything like that.
Again, logic doesn´t seem to be your strong suit.

Andy,


You seem to leave us with the conclusion that your read on things is that the Causes of Being vis-à-vis Christian metaphysics are one and the same with causes within physical systems (naturalism). That is unfortunate.


On proportionate causality - yes - Hume seems to want to hold out for some rabbits popping into existence without sufficient.... proportionate.... causality. Theism and Non-Theism alike are in-play here. Hume's rabbits aside, the Christian does not assert that God can make round squares (and so on). That you think your philosophy may have immunity from such is unfortunate.


On neurons/love and on neuronal synapses/reasoning and on cerebral contents/logic, you've not appealed to anything other than observational reality. You seem to speak, and argue, as if reality - or as if your ontology (whichever one you like you are free to use here) just inexplicably stops there. Of course we all know it doesn't as observation just is sensory perception which just is neurons firing which just is sodium channels.....and so on. That seeming stopping point you've *seemed* to have chosen is well unfortunate. Physical causes have love in them? Where? Is love found in the sodium channel? Is love found in the potassium channels? In the photon pumps? Where is the physical property of love as causation which gives to its effects that same property which is itself - namely - love? What properties can we assume you do you find there in the energy packets cascading about the cosmos?

Hmmmm...... two typos....


That seeming stopping point you've *seemed* to have chosen is, well, unfortunate......


Is love found in the potassium channels? In the V-ATPases (affected by proton pump inhibitors)? Where is the physical......


While some philosophers seem to want to claim they have a philosophy which is un-tethered by the principle of proportionate causality, it’s best to remember that any claim of constitutional properties magically emerging within the effects of any physical system which are not already implicit in their causes is nonsense. In a way it even begs the question on a key problem in the arena of the philosophy of mind. One cannot find in the effect that which “is” Pain, nor Wet, nor Intention, and so on, over inside of the cause of that effect unless one stops prematurely in one’s unpacking of what something “is” – as all such definitions are eliminated as one disassembles the package. The dishonesty that is that bizarre refusal to keep going is like saying “bookcases exist necessarily” (because, um, mind denotes bookcases, or, umm… a bookcase exists here…) or it is like saying “bookcases are the fundamental constitution of matter” (because, um, mind denotes bookcases, or, umm… a bookcase exists here). But of course there is no such “property” that is “bookcases” constituting that which is the material order. In short, there is no property that is bookcases in the physical universe.


Why?


Because “Bookcases” gets, well, eliminated. It is preceded by indifferent reverberations of photons, it is compiled by indifferent reverberations of photons, it is constituted of indifferent reverberations of photons, it “returns” to that which it always has been – indifferent reverberations of photons – on materialism. The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “personhood”. The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “thought”. The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “love”. The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “reasoning”. The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “intent”. The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “logic”.


The same precedes, constitutes, and outlasts “bookcase”.


Encountering the materialist who doesn’t like that – or refuses to embrace that – isn’t a problem unless and until said person justifies the assertion that such is not the case.


A reminder from the book, “The Experience of God”, by David Bentley Hart:


"A true physicalism makes no allowance for emergent properties in nature that are not already implicit in their causes. Unless, then, one is positing the existence of proto-conscious material elements, particles of intentionality and awareness that are in some inconceivable way already rational and subjective, and that can add up to the unified perspective of a single conscious subject (which seems a quite fantastic notion), one is really just talking about some marvelously inexplicable transition from the undirected, mindless causality of mechanistic matter to the intentional unity of consciousness. Talk of emergence in purely physical terms, then, really does not seem conspicuously better than talk of magic."


Lastly, any attempt to equate, or assert, or whatever, that the Causes of Being vis-à-vis Christian metaphysics are one and the same with causes within physical systems (naturalism) is just misinformed. Encountering the materialist who doesn’t like that – or refuses to embrace that – isn’t a problem unless and until said person justifies the assertion that such is not the case.


Andy,


Your news is big, big news - the news that "wet" is the constitutional property of the material order, that it is not eliminated.


But there was, and will be, that which is "no wet exists" - on materialism - in the physical universe. Oddly it both can be and will be eliminated expressly because of what it *is*. Wow. Hence, "wet" is not at all what we are talking about. We are speaking about constitutional properties of the physical universe which are neither created nor destroyed - which are not eliminated. If "wet" is such a property, please enlighten us. Did the fundamental property of reality that is "wet" cause the Big Bang? Really? Precede the Big Bang? Really? Outlast the physical universe? Really?


That you miss the entire concept here is, well, unfortunate.


"- I´m confident that you can show where Andy redefined anything because you are surely not a liar, or are you?"

Oh, speak about yourself in the 3rd person...ok. Andy seems to like to throw the charge of liar out first thing...kinda weird that a proslytizer would go in both guns blazing, seems that would ruin the evangelistic effort.

Anyway, Andy spent a good amount of time correcting and yes redefining[in full frontal unabashed question begging fashion] on terms many times previous to my post. He also seems to have a bit of trouble understanding the nature of presuppositions...those of the justified kind vs. those of the assumed kind.

In Andy's missionary work, He says that the properties of propositional logic are observable/falsifiable. Oh, really? Ok, where would one go to see these properties in action?

Hmmm, Andy doesn't like Feser very much. I wonder if this or this recent activity has anything to do with it, or does it go back further?

Or, maybe this kind of rude treatment of one or two of the apostles of scientism. Maybe not, Coyne admits the meaninglessness of that worldview, the loss of truth,self,meaning...Andy, it seems wont go there.

At any rate, Feser's philosophical credentials cannot be hand waved away, even if the internet references him soley on a particular term/phrase...afterall, he could actually be right, and at the same time, be the first one to be making a right distinction.

Brad B

"Anyway, Andy spent a good amount of time correcting and yes redefining[in full frontal unabashed question begging fashion] on terms many times previous to my post. He also seems to have a bit of trouble understanding the nature of presuppositions...those of the justified kind vs. those of the assumed kind."

You cant simply say - "Andy redefined things because I say so"

In order for your claim to be taken seriously you should point out where Andy did so in your opinion.

Im not saying you are wrong - neither am I saying you are right - Im just pointing out that you sound hollow without proper justification.

Brad B,
"Oh, speak about yourself in the 3rd person...ok. Andy seems to like to throw the charge of liar out first thing...kinda weird that a proslytizer would go in both guns blazing, seems that would ruin the evangelistic effort."
- Oh I´m not proselytizing, I´m actually quite happen that a guy with your demonstrated degrees of honesty and intelligence doesn´t agree with me about anything of importance - I would be quite embarrassed if you were on "my side".

"Anyway, Andy spent a good amount of time correcting and yes redefining[in full frontal unabashed question begging fashion] on terms many times previous to my post."
- Of course! You just cannot cite a single instance of me doing that - but that certainly doesn´t mean that you are a liar, it just means that we have to take your braindead accusations on faith alone, eh? ;-)

"In Andy's missionary work, He says that the properties of propositional logic are observable/falsifiable. Oh, really? Ok, where would one go to see these properties in action?"
- You are apparently new to the internet. When you see a string that starts with "http", that means that you can take it, copy it into the url bar of your browser, and it then takes you to a new website. You´re welcome. You can do that with several of the links I provided earlier, like for example this one:
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dmalamen/courses/prob-determ/Putnam.pdf
And yes, the laws of logic are verifiable and falsifiable. Some even have already been falsified - the principle of distributivity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_distributivity ) that is valid in classical propositional logic for example cannot be universally valid - because some phenomena that demonstrably exist in the real world could not exist if the principle of distributivity were universally valid.

"Hmmm, Andy doesn't like Feser very much. I wonder if this or this recent activity has anything to do with it, or does it go back further?"
- It´s cute that you link to an article called "Why can’t these guys stay on topic? Or read?" even though the content of the article has nothing to do with anything that anyone in this thread talks about (i.e. failure on your side to stay on topic) and even thouch while you consistently fail to address anything I actually wrote (i.e. failure on your side to read what I wrote with comprehension)

"At any rate, Feser's philosophical credentials cannot be hand waved away"
- And no one tried to do that (you reading comprehension skills are truly abysmal). What I actually said was that this is not some kind of important, established or at the very least well-known philosophical principle (as scbrownlhrm implied by saying "That's surprising given the early stages at which the principle of sufficient causality is typically taught these days.") - its rather an obscure principle made up by Edward Feser which the rest of academia doesn´t seem to give a damn about (for good reason I might add, as I showed above).

scbrownlhrm,
"You seem to leave us with the conclusion that your read on things is that the Causes of Being vis-à-vis Christian metaphysics are one and the same with causes within physical systems (naturalism). That is unfortunate."
- No. I rather demonstrated that you yourself do not believe the BS you say - like "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with". You rather pretend that it is true whenever that is convenient, and pretend that it doesn´t exist when its truth would be inconvenient. You make it up as you go along and evidently couldn´t care less about truth or consistency.

scbrownlhrm,
"On proportionate causality - yes - Hume seems to want to hold out for some rabbits popping into existence without sufficient.... proportionate.... causality. Theism and Non-Theism alike are in-play here. Hume's rabbits aside, the Christian does not assert that God can make round squares (and so on)."
- No, "the Christian" rather asserts that "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" is a true statement whenever it is convenient, and pretends that the principle doesn´t exist whenever it is inconvenient. Because "the Christian" doesn´t care about truth or consistency.

scbrownlhrm,
"Physical causes have love in them? Where? Is love found in the sodium channel? Is love found in the potassium channels? In the photon pumps? Where is the physical property of love as causation which gives to its effects that same property which is itself - namely - love? What properties can we assume you do you find there in the energy packets cascading about the cosmos?"
- Ah, and now you pretend that this BS here: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" is true again - so that if the fundamental building blocks of reality don´t have the property of "love", "love" therefore cannot exist. Well this is both BS and you yourself do not believe it - and I can prove that you yourself do not believe it:
Show me the cause of the creation of water molecules that have the property of being fluid.
You cannot - you had several chances to do so already and you consistently failed to so. It is exactly as I said, you yourself do not believe this principle of proportionate causality BS - you just use it whenever it is convenient and abandon it whenever it is inconvenient. Because you don´t care about either truth or consistency.

And now, lets observe how scbrownlhrm "proves" (using Christian "logic") that God has the property of "being a bookcase", he says:
"The dishonesty that is that bizarre refusal to keep going is like saying “bookcases exist necessarily” (because, um, mind denotes bookcases, or, umm… a bookcase exists here…) or it is like saying “bookcases are the fundamental constitution of matter” (because, um, mind denotes bookcases, or, umm… a bookcase exists here). But of course there is no such “property” that is “bookcases” constituting that which is the material order. In short, there is no property that is bookcases in the physical universe."
- and he is of course completely right! No physical building block of reality has the property of "being a bookcase", which means that based on Christian "logic" (lol), bookcases cannot actually exist if everything is physical. However, if Christianity is true, this problem obviously vanishes because God exists as the ultimate first cause of every contingent thing - like bookcases - and the property of "being a bookcase" can then totally exist because God himself is a bookcase (at least according to scbrownlhrm - standard Christian metaphysics is not quite as stupid as scbrownlhrm´s inane and verbose ramblings).

Andy,

Yes, as I said, your news that "wet" is a fundamental property of physical reactions is big, big news. That you even think that such is the concept under review is even BIGGER news!

Bravo!

Andy,

When someone tells you emphatically that the concept under review is not X nor Y, your appeal to examples of X and Y is misguided. Bookcase is to Wet what Wet is to aggregated particles. None of that describe the concept under review. There are no properties in Bookcases or in Water that are not already housed in their elemental causes.


Try again.

You're far afield.


Note the resistance to the obvious by the Naturalist.


The assertion: QM houses the elemental property of bookcase, of love, of wet. Such properties are what constitute the known universe, such properties comprise all known phenomena.


Unless and until the skeptic can show us that such is the case regarding QM, there is no problem. There is only the skeptic's conflations.

Andy,

It will be the principle of proportionate causality or it will be Hume's rabbits popping into existence.

Since you wave your hand at the former we can only guess that you embrace the latter.

That's unfortunate.

Unless and until you show us evidence that the former isn't coherent whereas the latter is, you're in a bit of trouble it seems.

scbrownlhrm

A few very simple yes or no questions:
1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes of the creation of water that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without either admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
So I anticipate that you will just cowardly ignore them.

Andy,

Will it be Feser or Hume?

You're still conflating particle aggregate for constitutional properties comprising all known phenomena.


Try again.


Yes, I ignore your misrepresentations and conflations.

What, you thought otherwise?


scbrownlhrm

Exactly as I anticipated, you cowardly refuse to answer three extremely simple yes-or-no questions, so here we go with round #2:

A few very simple yes or no questions:
1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes of the creation of water that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
So I anticipate that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them again.

Andy,

From what you tell us, we can only conclude that your read of things is simply that QM houses the elemental property of bookcase, of love, of wet. Such properties are what constitute the known universe, such properties comprise all known phenomena.


Unless and until you can show us that such is the case regarding QM, there is no problem for the Christian. There are only the your conflations and your emotional afflictions amid Feser/Hume.


Can you show us a rabbit?

scbrownlhrm

And just as predicted, you are still cowardly refusing to answer three extremely simple and relevant yes-or-no questions and merely assert that I am "conflating" something - a completely baseless accusation that you cannot back up with anything. Unlike you, I don´t have to conflate or misrepresent and instead can quote you *verbatim*, so here we go with round #3:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes of the creation of water that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
So I anticipate that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet again and instead make up some baseless accusations about me allegedly "conflating" or "misrepresenting" something - and then we´ll go straight to round #4.

Andy,

As I raised the issue of proportionate causality, you're certainly free to redefine it into what it isn't.

Brad B. was right about you after all.

scbrownlhrm

Just as predicted, you are still cowardly refusing - for the THIRD time in a row -to answer three extremely simple and relevant yes-or-no questions and instead resort to completely baseless accusations. Allegedly, I am "redefining" the principle of proportionate causality - this is an accusation that you a) cannot back up with anything (if it were true - you could contrast the actual meaning with my alleged misrepresentation, but you cannot) and b) is transparently absurd because I am quoting your own words verbatim without omitting any relevant context.
So here we go with round #4:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes of the creation of water that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your baseless accusations about me allegedly "conflating" or "misrepresenting" something - and then we´ll go straight to round #5.

- See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/are-atheists-just-suppressing-the-truth-in-unrighteousness/comments/page/3/#comments

Brad B.,

To be honest I thought you were mistaken about Andy's intent in that do to my mistaken use of the word sufficient instead of proportionate the concept was misread from the start. However, the obvious re-defining you described is apparent. Unfortunate.

scbrownlhrm

And just as predicted, you are still cowardly refusing - for the FOURTH time in a row - to answer three extremely simple and relevant yes-or-no questions and instead resort to completely baseless accusations.
Allegedly, I am "redefining" the principle of proportionate causality - this is an accusation that you a) cannot back up with anything (if it were true - you could contrast the actual meaning with my alleged misrepresentation, but you cannot) and b) is transparently absurd because I am quoting your own words verbatim without omitting any relevant context.
So here we go with round #5:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your baseless accusations about me allegedly "conflating" or "misrepresenting" something - and then we´ll go straight to round #6.

Yes Andy, the principle of proportionate causality is what you say it is. "Wet" and all that.

I've now conceded that your definition captures the concept.

scbrownlhrm

And just as predicted, you are still cowardly refusing - for the FIFTH time in a row - to answer three extremely simple and relevant yes-or-no questions and instead resort to completely baseless accusations.
Allegedly, I am "redefining" the principle of proportionate causality - however, this is an obvious lie from your side because I am quoting your own words verbatim without omitting any relevant context.
So here we go with round #6:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your obvious lie about me redefining the concept you introduced although I am quoting you verbatime - and then we´ll go straight to round #7.

No Andy, I have no explanation for my silly rants. You are correct. I am wrong. I'd answer your challenge if I could, but I can't. Because you're right. Wet is the fact of it.

And I only had to quote your own words six times in a row - VERBATIM until you finally concede that they are indeed your words.

Yes Andy. Wet. That's the concept. If it weren't I'd be able to answer your challenge.

scbrownlhrm

I see you revert back to your old lie about me allegedly misrepresenting the principle of proportionate causality that you introduced. Well, it is trivially ease to show that you are lying here - because I am quoting your words verbatim, this is what you said:
"causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with"
Everyone can easily check that:
1. this is indeed what you said
2. that I am not omitting any relevant context
3. that you are a shameless liar
by simply clicking on this link:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/are-atheists-just-suppressing-the-truth-in-unrighteousness.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7db5fe3970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7db5fe3970b


So here we go with round #7:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.

I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your obvious lie about me redefining the concept you introduced although I am quoting you verbatim - and then we´ll go straight to round #8.


Yes Andy, the principle of proportionate causality is what you say it is. "Wet" and all that. I've now conceded that your definition captures the concept.

Again.


scbrownlhrm,

Just as predicted, you mindlessly repeat the same stupid lie like a broken record. You say "the principle of proportionate causality is what you say it is" - however, I am not saying what this principle is supposed to be, I am merely quoting your own definition VERBATIM:
this is what you said:
"causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with"
Everyone can easily check that:
1. this is indeed what you said
2. that I am not omitting any relevant context
3. that you are a shameless liar
by simply clicking on this link:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/are-atheists-just-suppressing-the-truth-in-unrighteousness.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7db5fe3970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7db5fe3970b


So here we go again with round #8:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.

I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your obvious lie about me redefining the concept you introduced although I am quoting you verbatim - and then we´ll go straight to round #9.

Andy,

Yes, you are correct, "Wet".

That's the concept. I've never once, in this entire thread, stated otherwise, or quantified, or refined, or quoted David Hart, or circumscribed.

Not once.

But then why would I?

After all, "Wet" *is* the concept.

scbrownlhrm

Just as predicted, you mindlessly repeat the same stupid lie like a broken record. You say "the principle of proportionate causality is what you say it is" - however, I am not saying what this principle is supposed to be, I am merely quoting your own definition VERBATIM: this is what you said: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" Everyone can easily check that: 1. this is indeed what you said 2. that I am not omitting any relevant context 3. that you are a shameless liar by simply clicking on this link: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/10/are-atheists-just-suppressing-the-truth-in-unrighteousness.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7db5fe3970b#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201b7c7db5fe3970b

So here we go again with round #9: 1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no? 2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no? 3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid). There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment. I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your obvious lie about me redefining the concept you introduced although I am quoting you verbatim - and then we´ll go straight to round #10.

Andy,

Of course I believe in the principle of proportionate causality as I've quantified, and refined, and quoted Hart, and quoted Feser, and even further ontologically circumscribed several times in this thread.

But as I've said, those are all wrong. Whereas, "Wet" is correct.

Andy,

The last comment addressed question #1. But #2 and #3 are not relevant, at all, to the principle of proportionate causality as I've quantified, and refined, and quoted Hart, and quoted Feser, and even further ontologically circumscribed several times in this thread. You seem to think they're relevant but I can't help it if you can't or won't read more than one sentence out of hundreds here.

Hence, I simply resolve to concede that, yes, "Wet" is the concept in play.

The comments to this entry are closed.