patrick.net

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?

indigenous says

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?

You mean, what Woods got wrong?

Here's a fun von Mises rant, including attacks on the other main Whipping Boy besides Zionism, the Jesuit Order.
https://mises.org/library/decline-scholasticism

Austrianism is really in league with Medieval Revisionism, which is a pet project of traditionalist assholes who befuddle the public with their high-sounding scholastic verbiage.

thunderlips11 says

You mean, what Woods got wrong?

He is a Harvard grad with a PhD from Columbia. But you are somehow smarter?

Ok so you have lowered the debate to ad hominem, debate is over you are out of ammo...

Here I take the trouble to learn you something...

Aristotle lived in the fourth century B.C.E. That's 2400 years ago!

He was a smart guy in a highly ignorant time. He got a lot of things right and made some good contributions to mankind's knowledge. He also got a lot of things wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/lI47KuwaxTQ

Nonetheless, expecting anyone who lived in the fourth century B.C.E. to have any insights on the universe comparable to what a typical grad student in the 21st century is expect to have would be incredibly stupid. Mankind's knowledge has increased exponentially over the past few centuries that you cannot even meaningfully compare Aristotle's works to modern works. The only point in studying Aristotle -- and it's a good point -- is to understand history, not science or mathematics.

Now, I for one, believe that the history of mathematics and knowledge -- Aristotle wasn't a scientist, they didn't exist yet -- is highly underrated. However, idiots like indigenous have been appealing to authority through Aristotle for over 2000 years for the sole effect of slowing down progress and understanding. Because of this, the world may well have been better without Aristotle because of all the fools that came after him and used his incorrect ideas to hold back the world.

indigenous says

I'm not your nanny, if you can't understand it find someone who can explain it to you.

Translation: Shit, caught with my pants down again. Can't support my argument. Maybe I can convince people that if they don't accept my argument, it's because they are too stupid or lazy to find the evidence themselves. Yeah, that will work.

Dan8267 says

Translation

You mutts can't undstand what I'm saying so do what you always do, which is resort to ad hominem.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Translation

You mutts can't undstand what I'm saying so do what you always do, which is resort to ad hominem.

An ad hominem would be something like "indigenous is a racist moron". What I did was explicitly said what you were wrongfully implying. A real man would have taken it as a challenge to defend his position with evidence.

indigenous says

You mutts can't undstand what I'm saying so do what you always do, which is resort to ad hominem.

So which of us are booze-drenched alkies, pounding back Thunderbird and Night Train on urine soaked Barcaloungers, drunk off our asses?

indigenous says

He is a Harvard grad with a PhD from Columbia. But you are somehow smarter?

Argument from Authority.

Stanton Friedman has a Master's in Nuclear Physics from the University of Chicago, but that doesn't mean I accept his UFO claims just because he said so.

indigenous says

Ok so you have lowered the debate to ad hominem, debate is over you are out of ammo...

What ad hom? That you cribbed shit from Austrian evangelists? You admitted I was on the right track.

indigenous says

Here I take the trouble to learn you something...

If you want to use an argument, at least have a passing understanding of it first. You certainly should understand it yourself if you're going to school somebody else.

thunderlips11 says

If you want to use an argument, at least have a passing understanding of it first. You certainly should understand it yourself if you're going to school somebody else.

I understand it quite well, you on the other hand don't have a clue

Dan8267 says

A real man would have taken it as a challenge to defend his position with evidence.

And that is not ad hominem? Not one of you mutts have said anything but AH...

indigenous says

And that is not ad hominem?

No, it's an attempt to shame you into actually defending your position.

Dan8267 says

No, it's an attempt to shame you into actually defending your position.

Give me a fucking break, I defended it umpteen times.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

No, it's an attempt to shame you into actually defending your position.

Give me a fucking break, I defended it umpteen times.

You're kidding right? Around in circles we went.

thunderlips11 says

You're kidding right? Around in circles we went.

Fuck no, you mutts choose not to listen...

Another thing Aristotle claimed was that objects fall relative to their weight. Period.

That's a priori for you.

thunderlips11 says

Another thing Aristotle claimed was that objects fall relative to their weight. Period.

That is by definition a posteriori, me thinks that Aristotle is not very good at this. Best stick with a priori. Again don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Have you listened to the podcast I linked? Obviously not. Some of you fellers is hard to learn stuff to.

thunderlips11 says

Another thing Aristotle claimed was that objects fall relative to their weight.

If you don't believe that to be so. Then try standing on the street, while I drop a bowling ball and a grape from a 96 floor building on to your head. You take the bowling ball and I'll take the grape.
The bowling ball's pressure psi will be so great it will put your head where your ass is. The grape might put a welt on my noggin.