A closer look at the first way

[ReapReason]

Hey, the only post I’ve seen from you on this thread was post #4 which I replied to in post #10. Is that the one you’re referring to or have I missed one?

Okay. Let me explain it in another way.

Would you agree that to have a sentient mind (self-knowledge) is to have an actuality that is essentially missing in an object that does not have a sentient mind.

 

[Boojie]

Ok, I’ve been through this argument recently but lets see where this goes.

The problem I have always had with this argument is that it skips over the real meat of the question and jumps directly to “this being is what we call God”. The same sudden massive leap that Aquinas made. Now I’m happy to accept for the sake of argument that there was a prime mover (which I’ll refer to as PM for short). This PM is a “something” which happened first.

My question to you is whether you can fill in that gap and give the PM some of the qualities usually associated with the Christian God, instead of just saying “lets just call it God”. Lets start off with “personal being” how do you show that PM is really a personal being?

We know he must be a personal being because his creatures (us) have personalities. This is an inductive form of reasoning, knowing the cause thru its effects.

Regarding your thought on leap of faith of Aquinas, I don’t see a leap of faith. What Aquinas was proving was the existence of God not his attributes. He proved in his first way that the Prime Mover (PM) must exist to explain the effects. The universe is the moved, God is the unmoved mover. The question is: Is there such a thing that does not change? If we can demonstrate that such being is a possibility and not an impossibility, then that being exists. Is it a leap of faith to arrive at that conclusion? I don’t think so.

How do we demonstrate that there is such an infinite being? Here we go: We have existence not a nothing. Can we create existence? Existence cannot be created nor caused because nothing can precede existence. So existence must be infinite. To be infinite is to be immutable. To be immutable is to be unmoved. To be unmoved or immutable is to be perfect. To be perfect is to be one. Two or more perfect objects cannot co-exist logically.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Perplexity,

Thomists distinguish between active and passive potency. They concede that god has the former but say god can’t possibly have the latter. See, if pure act has no potency whatsoever, then it can’t cause anything, since you need to have the potential to cause something in order to actually cause it.

But, I don’t think the Thomists go far enough. It strikes me as incoherent (as it does other such as William Lane Craig) that something can have the active potency to cause X without having the passive potency to be the cause of X.

So, it seems, if there is a Pure Act, it can’t cause anything.

Active and passive potency refer to different things. Active potency is an active power to act/change things (i.e. reduce potentiality to actuality). Passive potentiality is a potentiality that requires something already actual to actualise it. Something has active potency insofar it is actual in some respect. For instance, I have a greater active potency to reason than a baby, because my human potential for reasoning is more actualised than that of a baby. A being of pure actuality (i.e. no passive potency) would have an unlimited active potency.

Remember, the argument for a being of pure actuality is based on the impossibility of an infinite series of passive potentialities being actualised - so the required unchanged changer is a being with no passive potentiality whatsoever. Hence the term pure actuality. In order to argue as you do, you would have to show that active potency necessarily requires some passive potency. I haven’ seen you demonstrate that yet, but am happy to hear your response.

 

[Perplexity]

Here’s an argument for you guys:

Something’s potential to do X entails its potential to be an Xer.

e.g., If I have the potential to write, then I have the potential to be a writer. If I have the potential to swim, then I have the potential to be a swimmer. If I have the potential (active) to efficiently cause, I have the potential (passive) to be an efficient cause.

It is by virtue of efficiently causing something that we acquire, or receive the status of ‘efficient cause’.

The principle mentioned above seems overwhelmingly confirmed by experience. I literally cannot think of a single counter-example, and I encourage you to try to find one.

All this spells doom for the Thomistic conception of god though:

1. Everything that has an active potency has a passive potency.
2. god has an active potency.
3. Therefore, god has a passive potency.
4. But, god does not have a passive potency.
5. Therefore, god does and does not have a passive potency.

In order to avoid (5) we must reject (1), (2), or (4). (2) and (4) are conceded by the Thomists. But, I don’t see how they can reasonably reject (1) given its powerful evidential support. This puts them in an awkward position. What to do?

Well, at least for those of us who are not already committed to the Thomist position, I think it’s clear we must reject (2) to save (1). With that, we have good reason to reject the existence of an unmoved mover. This doesn’t mean Pure Act doesn’t exist, it just means if it does, it can’t do anything, much less create anything ex nihilo.

 

[Perplexity]

Here’s an argument for you guys:

Something’s potential to do X entails its potential to be an Xer.

e.g., If I have the potential to write, then I have the potential to be a writer. If I have the potential to swim, then I have the potential to be a swimmer. If I have the potential (active) to efficiently cause, I have the potential (passive) to be an efficient cause.

It is by virtue of efficiently causing something that we acquire, or receive the status of ‘efficient cause’.

The principle mentioned above seems overwhelmingly confirmed by experience. I literally cannot think of a single counter-example, and I encourage you to try to find one.

All this spells doom for the Thomistic conception of god though:

1. Everything that has an active potency has a passive potency.
2. god has an active potency.
3. Therefore, god has a passive potency.
4. But, god does not have a passive potency.
5. Therefore, god does and does not have a passive potency.

In order to avoid (5) we must reject (1), (2), or (4). (2) and (4) are conceded by the Thomists. But, I don’t see how they can reasonably reject (1) given its powerful evidential support. This puts them in an awkward position. What to do?

Well, at least for those of us atheists who are not already committed to the Thomist position, I think it’s clear we must reject (2) to save (1). With that, we have good reason to reject the existence of an unmoved mover. This doesn’t mean Pure Act doesn’t exist, it just means if it does, it can’t do anything, much less create anything ex nihilo.

It seems theists would have to deny (4).

 

[JDaniel]

Well the way in using the term is in line with the definitions I’ve found.

Candide:

I don’t know which depressingly inadequate dictionary you were looking at but here’s the plain English meaning of “connotation,” plus a comparison of it with “denotation.”

From: About.com Grammar and Composition:
“Careful writers choose words both for what they mean (that is, their dictionary meanings, or denotations) and for what they suggest (their connotations, or emotional associations). For instance, “slim,” “scrawny,” and “svelte” all have related denotative meanings (thin, let’s say) but different connotative meanings. And if we’re trying to pay someone a compliment, we better get the connotation right.”
Anyway, I have an idea of what you’re attempting to get across.

If you say so. From the above definition they would appear to be connotations. In any case you know well enough what I mean, call them “determinants” if you like it makes no difference to my point. “God” has loads of additional meanings which are not supported by the first way while “Prime Mover” doesn’t have those additional meanings. Therefore*“Prime Mover” is the more appropriate term.

Which is exactly my point: there is no way that a PRIME MOVER could possibly be just some simple occurrence. You seem to have a problem with understanding that - to your benefit, I suppose. You are completely failing, perhaps purposely (Hmmm?), to consider what it means to be The PRIME MOVER - even if we concede that that is what we shall call Him.

1. PRIME = “first,” “no antecedent” - “none whatsoever.”
2. MOVER = “Efficient cause” - “that which changes/moves a subordinate exigency such as the “entire cosmos” (which includes the universe, of course).”

The concatenation of the two words begs every question that the determinants of God answer. God’s determinants are not additive.

We know “God” carries many inappropriate meanings,

Such as?

Ok, so we are agreed then that what the first way shows to exist has nothing to do with God (at least to the point where Aquinas left the argument).

No. Can’t you read? Is English not your native language? Seriously, I’ll try to get what we are all saying to you translated.

Ok, our views seem to part company at this point. Where do you get the need for a “sustaining mover” from?

Do you really NOT understand the language? I’ll try to write the analogy more simply:

The hand moves the stick that moves the stone along the ground. The moment the hand stops moving the stick - guess what? The stone stops moving as well. The entire series of substantially subordinated movers comes to an end. However, as all of us can plainly see, everything is still moving!

Let’s take this from a more scientific point of view. That which you call the PM, and which I call God, compressed dimensionless points of discrete space into an infinitesimally small singularity. At His Will, those dimensionless points began to move, i.e., expand away from each other. A potentially ongoing series of configurations and re-configurations of these dimensionless space points, which we may call, “s-points,” is what we perceive and understand to be motion and change. “Motion,” for the physicist seems to be “change of relative position.”

The PM is “whatever happened first”

No, that’s your description, and as descriptions go, it’s rather vapid. (Actually, I had a few other choice descriptions of it in mind, but then, I realized where I was! )

it’s POSSIBLE that the PM is some kind of deity, but there is yet to be any logic showing it MUST BE some kind of deity. That is essentially my question on this thread.*

I’ve been meaning to ask: What’s with the ostentatious " * " at the end of some, but not all of your sentences?

Despite that it will probably be lost in the swirlings of your mind, let’s envision a “logic,” shall we? (I’ll put that into a later post and draw your attention to it.)

Right, so you seem to*understand why assigning the appellation “God” or “Fairies” or “Horse” to the PM would be inappropriate.

No. A single word that embodies the entire essence, that is, all of that which could be a Prime Mover–First Cause’s definition, as we understand it, is not only much more elegant, but also, exquisitely more parsimonious.

Not at all, I’m just holding to using an appropriate term.

No you’re not. You’re being ornery - (and, argumentative!)

Otherwise I can insert any word “X” I like into the end of the first way to prove that “X” exists.

No you can’t. The word must not conflate two different entities.

Agreed - “something happened”

No.

I’m afraid that as best I can tell this does not follow. Where do you get this from?

I’ll get right back to you on it!

So again “something happened first”.

No.

Nope, frayed knot.

But, I’m afraid that I will have to take my leave, as I can see that you have no interest in rational discussion., and I have much more important things to do . . . like wondering which pill I should take, the red one, or the green one.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Just a very simple argument will show why the first way argument utterly fails.

1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1)
3 The universe is changing (common experience)
4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino)
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino)
6 There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong

 

[Shike]

Perplexity,

I think it valuable to read AndyT_81’s post (#43) a couple times as it helps clear up the confusion you demonstrate in your use of the terms active and passive potency.

I also think it isn’t fair of you to say that the First Way is invalid, especially without taking on my formalization of the proof in predicate logic notation that I gave you.

That said,

1. Everything that has an active potency has a passive potency.
2. god has an active potency.
3. Therefore, god has a passive potency.
4. But, god does not have a passive potency.
5. Therefore, god does and does not have a passive potency.

I see no good reason to accept premise 1. It is not the case that everything that has an active potency also has a passive potency. The best example I can give is the entity that is reached by the conclusion of the First Way. Remember, given AndyT_81’s clarification of terminology, God can reduce potency to act, but nothing outside of God reduces a potency of God into act (He doesn’t have that kind of potency to be reduced). Your example of God being Creator is not an example of a passive potency since it is God Himself who is responsible for such a creation and not some other entity (nor could it be anyone else).

As for the “personal being” contention. I think an opportunity for constructive discussion has been offered by persuing the line of thought about intellect. However, the carrot hasn’t been bitten.

Take care everybody.

 

[Shike]

Just a very simple argument will show why the first way argument utterly fails.

1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1)
3 The universe is changing (common experience)
4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino)
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino)
6 There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong

It’s not so simple as you see it. 6 is quite a leap. To me, it seems to leave too much unsaid and assumed about the nature of time (time is not absolute as your argument assumes). Also, it seems to attribute to God the same exact kind of causation that other entities exhibit on one another.

Ontic instant could be better characterized as top of the existential hierarchy of dependence. Also, in 6 you should add “unchanging”.

 

[Perplexity]

Shike: Your formulations of the first way are different, particularly in their validity. As far as the entity in the 1st ways conclusion being a counter example to my first premise, I take my first premise to be far better evidenced than some of the premises of the first way. I mean think about it, billions of examples confirming my first premise…that’s near certainty! Finally, I’m just working with the definitions of active and passive potency given by thomists like Clarke. In what way have I misunderstood these concepts?

 

[belorg]

It’s not so simple as you see it. 6 is quite a leap. To me, it seems to leave too much unsaid and assumed about the nature of time (time is not absolute as your argument assumes). Also, it seems to attribute to God the same exact kind of causation that other entities exhibit on one another.

My argument does not assume anything about time.

Ontic instant could be better characterized as top of the existential hierarchy of dependence. Also, in 6 you should add “unchanging”.

Maybe it could be better characterized that way, but that is just a semantic matter, and if you prefer you can add “unchanging”.

But the real question is: do you have any sort of substantive criticism of my argument?

 

[Candide_West]

Okay. Let me explain it in another way.

Would you agree that to have a sentient mind (self-knowledge) is to have an actuality that is essentially missing in an object that does not have a sentient mind.

Ok, I’d agree with that. It’s rather tautological though. Essentially what you’ve asked is

“if one thing has X and another thing doesn’t have X is the first thing in possession of X while the second is not?”

 

[Candide_West]

We know he must be a personal being because his creatures (us) have personalities. This is an inductive form of reasoning, knowing the cause thru its effects.

Afraid that doesn’t hold. It is not logical to say that only a personality can cause a personality any more that it is logical to say that only a robot can cause a robot.

Regarding your thought on leap of faith of Aquinas, I don’t see a leap of faith. What Aquinas was proving was the existence of God not his attributes.

Exactly my point, he “proved” God by assigning the name “God” to the PM. Obviously this makes God trivial. My question here is whether it is possible to start re-attaching the other characteristics which Christians believe are possessed by God. So far no progress on that front.

He proved in his first way that the Prime Mover (PM) must exist to explain the effects. The universe is the moved, God is the unmoved mover.

Nope, the mover does not need to be unmoved, only first.*

The question is: Is there such a thing that does not change? If we can demonstrate that such being is a possibility and not an impossibility, then that being exists.

Not true, it is POSSIBLE (at least theoretically) for unicorns to exist. That does not mean that they DO exist.

Is it a leap of faith to arrive at that conclusion? I don’t think so.

No, leap of logic would be a more appropriate term.

How do we demonstrate that there is such an infinite being? Here we go: We have existence not a nothing. Can we create existence?*

no, but this hardly seems relevant.

Existence cannot be created nor caused because nothing can precede existence.*

Ok, if I’m understanding you correctly you are saying that there could never have been nothingness. Ok, let’s accept that for the sake of argument, a timeless quantum flux seems to meet the requirements here.

So existence must be infinite.*

Does not hold.

To be infinite is to be immutable.*

Does not hold.

To be immutable is to be unmoved.*

True, but irrelevant.

To be unmoved or immutable is to be perfect.

Depends what you mean by perfect. Something broken which remains eternally broken is perfect by your apparent use of the term.

*To be perfect is to be one. Two or more perfect objects cannot co-exist logically.

Why not? I’m guessing again this depends on how you define perfect. But as far as I can see there is nothing in the normal definition which precludes multiple perfect things.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

I don’t know which depressingly inadequate dictionary you were looking at but here’s the plain English meaning of “connotation,” plus a comparison of it with “denotation.”

Mine was from dictionary.com. It doesn’t seem to disagree with yours either. Not sure what your issue is here, you seem to be in violent agreement with me.

Anyway, I have an idea of what you’re attempting to get across.

Righto, well the purpose of language is primarily one of communication so the goal seems to have been achieved.*

Which is exactly my point: there is no way that a PRIME MOVER could possibly be just some simple occurrence. You seem to have a problem with understanding that - to your benefit, I suppose.

Well my question on this thread was essentially exactly that. Whether or not any of the other usual characteristics of God may be attached to the PM demonstrated by the first way (other than the appellation “God”) so far the answer is “No”.

1. PRIME = “first,” “no antecedent” - “none whatsoever.”
2. MOVER = “Efficient cause” - “that which changes/moves a subordinate exigency such as the “entire cosmos” (which includes the universe, of course).”

Righto, so “whatever happened first” in plain English.*

The concatenation of the two words begs every question that the determinants of God answer. God’s determinants are not additive.*

And of course we can answer them with “Magic” and “Fairies” and “timeless quantum foam” just as easily. But that doesn’t mean they ARE the answer.

Such as?

I listed some already, but as I’ve said let’s focus on “personal being” for now.

No. Can’t you read? Is English not your native language? Seriously, I’ll try to get what we are all saying to you translated.

You agreed with me that someone can accept the conclusion of the first way (that “something happened first”) and be an atheist (not believe in any Gods) so clearly that means that the first way DOESN’T prove the existence of any god. Perhaps you didn’t mean to write that?*

Do you really NOT understand the language? I’ll try to write the analogy more simply:

The hand moves the stick that moves the stone along the ground. …

Have you ever played snooker? Or pool? The white ball hits a red ball and stops moving, the red ball moves away. If you wish to show that the PM must necessarily be a sustaining mover then please go ahead. That would be an interesting read.*

Let’s take this from a more scientific point of view. That which you call the PM, and which I call God, compressed dimensionless points of discrete space into an infinitesimally small singularity. …

Indeed, the big bang occurred, my question (once again) is whether we can logically assign a personal being as the cause of it. So far no progress on this front aside from repeated assertions.

No, that’s your description, and as descriptions go, it’s rather vapid. (Actually, I had a few other choice descriptions of it in mind, but then, I realized where I was! )

True, it doesn’t add anything to PM. But I didn’t think anything needed to be added, I only added the clarification as you seemed to be struggling with it.

I’ve been meaning to ask: What’s with the ostentatious " * " at the end of some, but not all of your sentences?

My browser has an odd interaction with the text tool on this website, it seems to insert them at random. Please just ignore them.

Despite that it will probably be lost in the swirlings of your mind, let’s envision a “logic,” shall we? (I’ll put that into a later post and draw your attention to it.)

Ok, I shall look forwards to it.*

No. A single word that embodies the entire essence, that is, all of that which could be a Prime Mover–First Cause’s definition, as we understand it, is not only much more elegant, but also, exquisitely more parsimonious.*

Only if the selected word carries exactly the correct meaning and only that meaning. “God” meets neither of those criteria, at least not in common usage. Neither does the word “magic” or “fairies” which is why I don’t propose to use those either.

No you’re not. You’re being ornery - (and, argumentative!)

Not at all, I am in excellent humour thank you.*

No you can’t. The word must not conflate two different entities.

Precisely my point. Well done.

No.

In fact yes.*

I’ll get right back to you on it!

Okaydokey, I shall look forwards to it.*

No.

In fact yes, “something happened first” is an excellent plain English description carrying with it the virtues of both brevity and simplicity.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Perplexity,

Something’s potential to do X entails its potential to be an Xer.

e.g., If I have the potential to write, then I have the potential to be a writer. If I have the potential to swim, then I have the potential to be a swimmer. If I have the potential (active) to efficiently cause, I have the potential (passive) to be an efficient cause.

I don’t see how adding an “er” to the end of active potencies converts it to a passive potency. I’m finding it difficult to see what you are trying to say here. Can you flesh out what you mean here a bit more?

1. Everything that has an active potency has a passive potency.
2. god has an active potency.
3. Therefore, god has a passive potency.
4. But, god does not have a passive potency.
5. Therefore, god does and does not have a passive potency.

1. is what is in question and you have suggested an inductive style of support for 1, however I believe it fails because you are trying to apply what is the case for beings with passive potentiality to a being which has none. As I stated above, active potency is actually opposed to passive potency i.e. the more passive potency the less active potency. So this shows that if there is a relationship between active and passive potency, it is an inverse relationship - not a proportional one. Therefore as passive potency is reduced to zero active potency becomes unlimited.

In order for you to demonstrate 1, you can’t just show the regular conjunction of two things (i.e. passive and active potentiality) and use this to argue that these must necessarily go together. Inductive arguments only have force when you can demonstrate a causal link between the two, however, as I have argued, there is no such link - rather the presence of one actually reduces the presence of the other.

It is of course no coincidence that all objects in the universe that have active potency also have passive potency - that is because all temporal and material things have passive potential.

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t see how adding an “er” to the end of active potencies converts it to a passive potency. I’m finding it difficult to see what you are trying to say here. Can you flesh out what you mean here a bit more?

Sure, let me try it this way:

Passive potency is the capacity to receive some actual perfection. Active potency is the capacity to cause (whether formally, efficiently, finally, or materially).

Being the/a cause of X is an actual perfection. Thus the capacity to receive this actual perfection is a passive potency. And what is that capacity? The capacity to be the/a cause of X.

All I’m saying is you cannot have the capacity to cause X without simultaneously having the capacity to be the/a cause of X. Or at least, that such a notion is incoherent to me.

1. is what is in question and you have suggested an inductive style of support for 1, however I believe it fails because you are trying to apply what is the case for beings with passive potentiality to a being which has none.

When you say I’m trying to apply “what is the case” for beings with passive potentiality to a being which has none, what do you mean by “the case”? Further, this seems to assume that Pure Act can have active potency.

As I stated above, active potency is actually opposed to passive potency i.e. the more passive potency the less active potency. So this shows that if there is a relationship between active and passive potency, it is an inverse relationship - not a proportional one. Therefore as passive potency is reduced to zero active potency becomes unlimited.

I guess I don’t see how this is opposed to what I’ve said. In conjunction with what I’ve said, all this means is if there is Pure Act, it has no potency at all, neither active nor passive.

In order for you to demonstrate 1, you can’t just show the regular conjunction of two things (i.e. passive and active potentiality) and use this to argue that these must necessarily go together. Inductive arguments only have force when you can demonstrate a causal link between the two, however, as I have argued, there is no such link - rather the presence of one actually reduces the presence of the other.

I’d go further, it strikes me as fallacious to argue from frequent association to causal relationship. But, I don’t see why I need to show there is any causal relationship. You’ve argued that to have active potency is to be actual, and thus less potential. That’s fine. Granting that the presence of one reduces the presence of the other doesn’t indicate that the former can’t entail the latter. For my argument, it just means Pure Act can’t have active potency.

If it’s probable that something has passive potency given that it has active potency, it doesn’t matter whether this is associative or causal.

It is of course no coincidence that all objects in the universe that have active potency also have passive potency - that is because all temporal and material things have passive potential.

Exactly! So, of course this information is irrelevant to Pure Act, but it’s entirely relevant to something that has active potency, like god is alleged to.

I understand that by ‘Pure Act’ thomists generally mean that actual being without any passive potency, so I’m using it in a revised sense, but given my explanation I don’t think this is unreasonable. i.e., if there is Pure Act, it has no active or passive potencies.

 

[ReapReason]

Ok, I’d agree with that. It’s rather tautological though. Essentially what you’ve asked is

“if one thing has X and another thing doesn’t have X is the first thing in possession of X while the second is not?”

The point is, a thing which can think has a power that is missing in an object that is not capable of thinking.

That being the case, I have another question for you.

Would you agree that if “B” receives a power from “A” (a power that “B” did not have in either potentiality or actuality by itself), that therefore “B” is not the existential source of the power or potentiality?

 

[Candide_West]

The point is, a thing which can think has a power that is missing in an object that is not capable of thinking.

Not sure about “missing” but in general that seems fine.

That being the case, I have another question for you.

Would you agree that if “B” receives a power from “A” (a power that “B” did not have in either potentiality or actuality by itself), that therefore “B” is not the existential source of the power or potentiality?

Seems reasonable enough, although again somewhat tautological.*

Incidentally, I’m engaging with this discussion with you on the assumption that sooner or later it’s going to revolve back to the topic of Aquinas’s first way (I’m assuming you have a related point which you are leading up to here).*

 

[ReapReason]

Not sure about “missing” but in general that seems fine.

Seems reasonable enough, although again somewhat tautological.*

Incidentally, I’m engaging with this discussion with you on the assumption that sooner or later it’s going to revolve back to the topic of Aquinas’s first way (I’m assuming you have a related point which you are leading up to here).*

Given that you agree with both my points, then I take it that you agree with the idea of “proportionate causality”. Do you understand why I have said this?

 

[JDaniel]

Perhaps unbeknownst to you, this is practically equivalent to saying 2+2=5

Perplexed:

If you are here describing your assertion, you are correct. If not, you are incorrect. What do you think logical validity is?

I haven’t seen this addressed on this thread, much less ad nauseeum. Maybe you mean it’s been discussed on the forums before. But, of course, by this reasoning almost no threads should start since their topics have already been discussed I suspect this was more of a rhetorical attempt to undermine my point.

So, by your reasoning, everyone else is supposed to re-type arguments ad infinitum, so that you don’t have to do any homework?

If you ask me to do that, I will. but, I expect you to read it and regard it.

God bless,
jd