patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

SO there you go. God has distinguishing characteristics, at least by his own Holy Book and by extension the beliefs of the Religion upon which Thomism is based. And therefore, by your quoted logic, there must be more than one of them.

God did not write the bible. Thomism is not based on religion. It is a priori Now I'm repeating myself... AFK

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Ask him about the CRA!

I linked that too.

I'll bet Santa gave both of you a lump of coal up your ass.

CaptainShuddup says

They ordered him to take down a wooden structure of 1X6's shoddily strewn together without a permit. From the video I saw of it, it is even set up with in inches of the street. He has until tomorrow to comply. If it was solely about him sullying the good name of our Lord and Savior on this Christmas morn, then you think they would have ordered him to do it in time for it to have been gone by today at least.

Aren't all "mangers" crappy structures? Are they ever permitted? Obviously the township had a sick up its collective ass and they found a way to force the guy to take it down.

It would have been easier to just ignore it if it offended someone. It would have been taken down in time.

elliemae says

Obviously the township had a sick up its collective ass and they found a way to force the guy to take it down.

After Christmas.

thunderlips11 says

We gonna say wiki wiki again?

Once again, never argue with idiots...

thunderlips11 says

That's his M.O.

Yup I'm the one who doesn't understand...

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

We gonna say wiki wiki again?

Once again, never argue with idiots...

thunderlips11 says

That's his M.O.

Yup I'm the one who doesn't understand...

Yup.

http://patrick.net/?p=1263478&c=1158405

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

We gonna say wiki wiki again?

Once again, never argue with idiots...

thunderlips11 says

That's his M.O.

Yup I'm the one who doesn't understand...

Yup.

http://patrick.net/?p=1263478&c=1158405

I see the "Fully actualized, no defining characteristics" crap came up in that thread (as well as "Hero Worship of Aristotle" as Dan so eloquently put it).

You know what else has no defining characteristics?

Nothing.

thunderlips11 says

Nothing.

Sactly, you cannot define something that is exterior to the physical universe in physical universe terms.

Greg Bickford, the township administrator, said the citation has nothing to do with the content of the display, which he called "comical." Rather, the size and location are the issues, Bickford said.

That's some big ass bullshit there. He should put that statement to the test by projecting a giant, naked Jesus sucking another naked man's cock on his house. That won't "violate any local property maintenance codes".

Something like this, but that would be offensive to the officials who used extortion to get him to remove his message.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_fivBoHfgEs

jvolstad says

Officials order Ohio man to take down zombie Nativity scene

When did the Democrats get petty and retarded?

You guys used to stand for something, and your battles you chose really meant something.

If your knickers are in a twist over this story, then your Liberal enlightenment training has been complete. Please report to the nearest raw sewage processing plant to begin your career.

SoftShell says

jvolstad says

Officials order Ohio man to take down zombie Nativity scene

Libbys cans vegetables, is this a metaphor?

no it was supposed to be an insult but I was in a hurry..

indigenous says

SoftShell says

jvolstad says

Officials order Ohio man to take down zombie Nativity scene

Libbys cans vegetables, is this a metaphor?

indigenous says

Once again, this idea comes from the Summa Theologica, it is based on the idea from Aristotle the unmoved mover. It states that all things are moved by a mover and that the mover is exterior to the moved in other words a primary cause moves the moved (potentiality) towards a destination (actuality).

It's about Theology. You don't need 3 years of Latin to figure it out.

So Thomas Aquinas is a theologian who wrote a theological work.

You cannot regress this infinitely. There must be a primary mover. This primary mover is God.

It's special pleading to say everything has a mover, except the first mover.

thunderlips11 says

It's special pleading to say everything has a mover, except the first mover.

It is just logic...

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

It's special pleading to say everything has a mover, except the first mover.

It is just logic...

Special Pleading is a logical Fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

You're welcome.

thunderlips11 says

Special Pleading is a logical Fallacy.

No it's not, you are saying that Aristotle should be dismissed because of your mistaken notion?

indigenous says

No it's not, you are saying that Aristotle should be dismissed because of your mistaken notion?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y

Yea, Aristotle is not worth considering.

Go eat some spam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

indigenous says

You cannot regress this idea infinetly.

Why not?

thunderlips11 says

Why not?

Because then there would be no begining. The begining would have to be caused by an entity that was fully actualized, following that everything had potential.

indigenous says

Because then there would be no begining.

Why does there have to be a beginning?

Maybe the mega-verse that spawned us follows utterly different rules. Maybe the universe we inhabit is a burst black hole. Maybe this existence was created by friction from other existences, like a spark from flint n' steel?

Maybe we spawned from Primordial Chaos, and this is but one possibility of endless chaos.

it was better when you said:
"Maybe we live inside a black hole. Maybe the universe was created by friction from two realtors rubbing up against each other"

thunderlips11 says

Maybe this existence was created by friction from other existences, like a spark from flint n' steel?

SoftShell says

"Maybe we live inside a black hole. Maybe the universe was created by friction from two realtors rubbing up against each other"

Ha!!!!

(My Kingdom for a preview button)

thunderlips11 says

Why does there have to be a beginning?

Otherwise there would be nothing.

My take on it, IOW my opinion is that we are spiritual beings. This is not the only universe. The universe has potential, spiritual beings can reach a state of being fully actualized. I.E. we are part of the same God. Admittedly some of us have descended further than others, some people are a joy to be around, some not so much...

You cannot think of these matters in physical universe terms. I.E. if there is nothing there is no time in other words there would be no beginning or end there is only now, there is no pain, there are no bodies, there would be no dimension, you would be infinitely big and infinity small at the same time.

CaptainShuddup says

When did the Democrats get petty and retarded?

You confuse intelligent people with democrats.

While it's true that democrats are often more intelligent than republicans, it's a mistake to assume every argument an intelligent person engages in, must necessarily be about some democrat or liberal agenda.

It's just an intelligent person in an argument that isn't about politics.

It is an understandable mistake. This is why republicans are constantly whining about the liberal dominance of colleges and universities. There are a lot of smart professors at colleges, and yes, they happen to often be liberals.

Ooooooow it's a conspiracy !

indigenous says

Otherwise there would be nothing.

So, you're saying there can't be an "even more" Prime Mover behind the Prime Mover because then there would be no beginning, and if there is no beginning, there would be nothing.

Where did the Prime Mover live, then, before the (mega-)universe? What are his characteristics, if there was, at some point, nothing?

Like I said earlier, something with no defining characteristics is not "self-actualized", unless Self-Actualized means "nothing".

Of interest:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

thunderlips11 says

So, you're saying there can't be an "even more" Prime Mover behind the Prime Mover because then there would be no beginning, and if there is no beginning, there would be nothing.

I guess so, but remember that there is only one prime mover, an entity that if fully actualized would be indistinguishable therefore only one. But in physical universe terms yes he would be nothing and there would be no physical universe.

thunderlips11 says

Where did the Prime Mover live, then, before the (mega-)universe? What are his characteristics, if there was, at some point, nothing?

Yes nothing. Again you cannot think of this in physical universe terms.

thunderlips11 says

Like I said earlier, something with no defining characteristics is not "self-actualized", unless Self-Actualized means "nothing".

I don't disagree. Except this nothing has abilities such as being able to create by decision and thus animate things, aka life. If you remove it from the physical universe you have no life.

indigenous says

I guess so, but remember that there is only one prime mover

I remember you saying that, but I don't think you've made a case as to why there needs to be a prime mover and why there has to be a set beginning.

If something exists out of time and space, how and when does it decide to create something?

indigenous says

But in physical universe terms yes he would be nothing and there would be no physical universe.

What's a non-physical universe?

indigenous says

I don't disagree. Except this nothing has abilities such as being able to create by decision and thus animate things, aka life. If you remove it from the physical universe you have no life.

There may very well be something in the physical universe that may be able to create something from nothing: Virtual Particles.

indigenous says

Admittedly some of us have descended further than others, some people are a joy to be around, some not so much...

And on que...

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

I guess so, but remember that there is only one prime mover

Why?

This is covered in the Thomisms, Aquinas talks about if an entity is fully actualized it is undistinguishable. For there to be more than one of something it has to be distinguishable. This is for the purposes of comparison.

thunderlips11 says

What's a non-physical universe?

Nothing

thunderlips11 says

There may very well be something in the physical universe that may be able to create something from nothing: Virtual Particles.

Nope

these are damning one-worders...

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

What's a non-physical universe?

Nothing

thunderlips11 says

There may very well be something in the physical universe that may be able to create something from nothing: Virtual Particles.

Nope

It is the nature of a priori logic.

indigenous says

This is covered in the Thomisms, Aquinas talks about if an entity is fully actualized it is undistinguishable. For there to be more than one of something it has to be distinguishable. This is for the purposes of comparison.

Undistinguishable things don't exist by definition, so if this is what Aquinas is saying, that fully actualized entities have no distinguishable characteristics, then fully actualized entities don't exist at all. Not one, but none.

indigenous says

What's a non-physical universe?

Nothing

And therefore non-physical universes do not exist...

indigenous says

There may very well be something in the physical universe that may be able to create something from nothing: Virtual Particles.

Nope

Could you amplify that?

thunderlips11 says

Undistinguishable things don't exist by definition, so if this is what Aquinas is saying, then fully actualized entities don't exist at all. Not one, but none.

Not by physical universe terms.

thunderlips11 says

And therefore non-physical universes do not exist...

A universe that does not contain things. You might say your world is your universe and you decide things and thus create things. But if you take away all of your things you would still remain. Are you nothing or do you have the ability to create? Do you exist?

thunderlips11 says

Could you amplify that?

Again the prime mover and Aristotle's idea that what is moved is moved by something outside of the thing that is moved. This is not infinitely regressive.

indigenous says

Not by physical universe terms.

Absolutely by physical universe terms. Nothing is the only thing without distinguishing characteristics in a physical universe.

indigenous says

A universe that does not contain things. You might say your world is your universe and you decide things and thus create things. But if you take away all of your things you would still remain. Are you nothing or do you have the ability to create? Do you exist?

For example...

(This sounds like you want to say "Ideal Forms Exist" at this point)

indigenous says

Again the prime mover and Aristotle's idea that what is moved is moved by something outside of the thing that is moved. This is not infinitely regressive.

Why Not? And you'll say because there is no beginning, and I'll say how did something exist before the beginning... or ask you to prove there was an ultimate beginning (outside of the whole mega-verse)...

You see we're going in circles here.

thunderlips11 says

Absolutely by physical universe terms. Nothing is the only thing without distinguishing characteristics in a physical universe.

Yup

thunderlips11 says

For example...

(This sounds like you want to say "Ideal Forms Exist" at this point)

Nope

thunderlips11 says

Why Not? And you'll say because there is no beginning, and I'll say how did something exist before the beginning... or ask you to prove there was an ultimate beginning (outside of the whole mega-verse)...

You see we're going in circles here.

Yup, you have to let go of thinking about this in physical universe terms. Not to be confused with faith or any religion.

It's pretty obvious it went like this:

Indigenous visits some Austrian site.
Woods Junior presents some philosophical babble about Thomism and First Causes that Indigenous doesn't understand, but which is used to butress Austrianism, perhaps through an intermediary step of justifying a prior logic as the sole basis for economic understanding.
Indigenous mentions it here.

thunderlips11 says

Indigenous visits some Austrian site.

Woods Junior presents some philosophical babble about Thomism and First Causes that Indigenous doesn't understand, but which is used to butress Austrianism, perhaps through an intermediary step of justifying a prior logic as the sole basis for economic understanding.

Indigenous mentions it here.

almost, I listened to this podcast:

http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-272-am-i-a-dummy-for-believing-in-god/

Why don't you listen to it and splain me what I got wrong?

indigenous says

And you mutts simply say: Aristotle an Aquinas are wrong because it "scientifically proven to be wrong"

I stated that I'm not talking about physics at all.

indigenous says

Summa Theologica, it is based on the idea from Aristotle the unmoved mover. It states that all things are moved by a mover and that the mover is exterior to the moved in other words a primary cause moves the moved (potentiality) towards a destination (actuality).

You cannot regress this infinitely. There must be a primary mover. This primary mover is God.

If this isn't an attempt to explain the world around us, what is it?