A closer look at the first way

[tonyrey]

Maybe you shouldn’t get mixed up in things you obviously do not understand, Tony.

You** certainly** you shouldn’t - unless you can justify:

1. Your assumption that I don’t understand - which amounts to an insult.
2. Your assumption that you are superior to others in your understanding of this issue.

Your statement does nothing to further the discussion and reveals hubris…

For your benefit I repeat the sentences I highlighted:

That’s what happens when one gives a positive name to a completely negative concept.

**A timeless state of real nothingness where God exists is a manifest contradiction. ****

Creation is entirely dependent on God for its existence.**

 

[belorg]

You** certainly** you shouldn’t - unless you can justify:

1. Your assumption that I don’t understand - which amounts to an insult.

It’s not an insult, but all of your replies in this thread show you just do not understand the issue at hand.

1. Your assumption that you are superior to others in your understanding of this issue.

I am not superior to others. But I do understand the implications of Thomism.

Your statement does nothing to further the discussion and reveals hubris…

So, you actually want to further the discussion? Then please, add something substantial. So far, you have only been trying to mock me, in a very childish way.
And claiming somethin gis irrefutable without even trying to explain is a very clear sign of hubris, as is throwing in a straw man to end a discussion.
If anyone, I should feel insulted.

For your benefit I repeat the sentences I highlighted:

That’s what happens when one gives a positive name to a completely negative concept.

**A timeless state of real nothingness where God exists is a manifest contradiction. ****

Creation is entirely dependent on God for its existence.**

So what? Don’t you think I know that nothingness cannot be an entity? Of course I do know that.
And ‘a timeless state of real nothingness’ is not more of a contradiction than a timeless personal being. Just because I or you or Michael cannot grasp a concept does not mean it is contradictory.
But more to the point: if real nothingness is a contradiction, the case against Thomism is even simpler, because then there is no way a changing universe is possible without God changing.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Still await your response belorg to my post concerning that God eternally wills in Himself, form. Which demonstrates Him being unmoved and a true Creator while avoiding your ontological assertions.

 

[tonyrey]

You certainly you shouldn’t - unless you can justify:

Produce evidence for that assertion.

1. Your assumption that you are superior to others in your understanding of this issue.

I am not superior to others. But I do understand the implications of Thomism.

Produce evidence for that assertion.

Your statement does nothing to further the discussion and reveals hubris…

So, you actually want to further the discussion? Then please, add something substantial.

I have done so already. Read on.

So far, you have only been trying to mock me, in a very childish way.

False assertion. I have stated objective facts which you have failed to refute.

And claiming something is irrefutable without even trying to explain is a very clear sign of hubris, as is throwing in a straw man to end a discussion.

More false assertions!

If anyone, I should feel insulted.

Why?

The onus is on you to explain statements made in reply to assertions in your previous post.

For your benefit I repeat the sentences I highlighted:

That’s what happens when one gives a positive name to a completely negative concept.

A timeless state of real nothingness where God exists is a manifest contradiction.

Creation is entirely dependent on God for its existence.

So what? Don’t you think I know that nothingness cannot be an entity? Of course I do know that.

You go on to state that “‘a timeless state of real nothingness’ is not more of a contradiction” as if it were a state. A state cannot exist without an entity.

And ‘a timeless state of real nothingness’ is not more of a contradiction than a timeless personal being. Just because I or you or Michael cannot grasp a concept does not mean it is contradictory.

Nothingness is not a state of anything. Just because you cannot grasp that fact it does not mean it is not a fact.

But more to the point: if real nothingness is a contradiction, the case against Thomism is even simpler, because then there is no way a changing universe is possible without God changing.

1. I have already pointed out that change does not necessarily entail change in the cause of the change.
2. If a granite rock crushes your skull does the rock change? It changes its position of course but it is the same intact rock that it was.
3. If you kill some one do you become a different person? Try making a plea of not guilty in a court of law on the ground that you are no longer the same person…

You are you and nothing will ever alter that fact. The essential “you” cannot be changed any more than truth and the principles of logic can be changed. A fact is eternal and immutable.

 

[Shike]

Maybe you shouldn’t get mixed up in things you obviously do not understand, Tony.

Focus on the arguments. They are still there.

 

[tonyrey]

Focus on the arguments. They are still there.

 

[belorg]

You go on to state that “‘a timeless state of real nothingness’ is not more of a contradiction” as if it were a state. A state cannot exist without an entity.

If there is an entity, it isn’t nothing. That’s the whole point.

Nothingness is not a state of anything. Just because you cannot grasp that fact it does not mean it is not a fact.

I have never said it is a state of anything. It’s nothing.

1. I have already pointed out that change does not necessarily entail change in the cause of the change.

You have asserted this, but given no evindece for this. Moreover, there is nothing else that can change.

1. If a granite rock crushes your skull does the rock change?

Yes it does. Go and study some physics.

It changes its position of course but it is the same intact rock that it was.

A chnage in position is a change, and it is not the same intact rock that it was.Physics has ecolved beyond the 13th century, Tony.

1. If you kill some one do you become a different person?

Yes

Try making a plea of not guilty in a court of law on the ground that you are no longer the same person…

.

Actually, there have been cases in which this plea was successful.

You are you and nothing will ever alter that fact. The essential “you” cannot be changed any more than truth and the principles of logic can be changed. A fact is eternal and immutable.

If you think Thomism is about being essentially the same, you are simply wrong and if you need proof that you don’t understand what you are talkijng about, this is it.

 

[belorg]

Focus on the arguments. They are still there.

I am still waiting for a substantial argument on your part, Michael. But I don’t think I am going to get one.

 

[belorg]

Still await your response belorg to my post concerning that God eternally wills in Himself, form. Which demonstrates Him being unmoved and a true Creator while avoiding your ontological assertions.

Since the form that is in Him, changes, there is something in Him that changes. Hence, Thomism is false.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Since the form that is in Him, changes, there is something in Him that changes. Hence, Thomism is false.

I just demonstrated in post 230 that assumption false. Care to address that post or continue to ignore it?

 

[belorg]

I just demonstrated in post 230 that assumption false. Care to address that post or continue to ignore it?

I did not ignore your post. What I said above does address it. I’ll take what I think is the essential part of your post.

Let me rephrase, all necessary forms are united to matter (or are in actuality in your vocabulary) or second actuality.

So, the necessary forms that are eternally within God are eternally united to second actuality (matter). Now matter is , by definition, changeable. Theerfore, there is something withing an unchangeable being that is changeable. Still seems contradictory to me.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

So, the necessary forms that are eternally within God are eternally united to second actuality (matter). Now matter is , by definition, changeable. Theerfore, there is something withing an unchangeable being that is changeable. Still seems contradictory to me.

I never said matter is within Him, just form. Also, not an eternal union since matter was not, prior it’s being. But those are besides the point, I think the problem here is all of our definitions of change. Your asserting your definition of change to Thomistic language, which is something different. To demonstrate; Aquinas stated in Contra Gentiles that creation is nither a motion nor a change, something I suspect when using your definition will not make sense. Here’s a excerpt of that chapter to clarify, “For all motion or change is the “act of that which exists potentially, as such.” But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change.” I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this entire time we’ve all been talking past each other. To move on, what exactly is your definition of change?

 

[tonyrey]

You go on to state that “‘a timeless state of real nothingness’ is not more of a contradiction” as if it were a state. A state cannot exist without an entity.

You are contradicting yourself: “'a timeless state of real nothingness”.

1. I have already pointed out that change does not necessarily entail change in the cause of the change.

You have asserted this, but given no evindece for this. Moreover, there is nothing else that can change.

Read on.

1. If a granite rock crushes your skull does the rock change?

Yes it does. Go and study some physics.

Go and study some law. If a person is responsible for the fall of that rock you are responsible for letting that rock kill you because it is considered to be the same rock - just as you are considered to be** the same person**. The notion that nothing ever stays the same is a crude oversimplification of reality. Don’t the fundamental laws of nature stay the same?

The identity of a person or object is not determined solely by its attributes. (That amounts to phenomenalism, a theory that is generally rejected in the face of its insurmountable difficulties, notably its inconsistency with the principle of causality. )

It changes its position of course but it is the same intact rock that it was.

A chnage in position is a change, and it is not the same intact rock that it was.Physics has ecolved beyond the 13th century, Tony.

The nature of reality is not determined solely by time or space. Read on.

1. If you kill some one do you become a different person?

Try making a plea of not guilty in a court of law on the ground that you are no longer the same person…

Actually, there have been cases in which this plea was successful.

I’m glad you agree that persons are **usually regarded as the same persons **and things are usually regarded as **the same things **(whether they are intact or not!). If a person deliberately caused the rock to kill you that person is responsible because it is the same person that used the rock and the same rock that was used to kill you.

(Even if there are mitigating circumstances the persons are still the same persons but you have already conceded the point by stating “there have been cases”!)

If you think Thomism is about being essentially the same, you are simply wrong and if you need proof that you don’t understand what you are talkijng about, this is it.

1. The use of a word is not a reason.
2. You have failed to explain why these statements are false:
3. You are you and nothing will ever alter that fact.
4. The essential “you” cannot be changed any more than truth and the principles of logic can be changed.
5. A fact is eternal and immutable.

 

[belorg]

I never said matter is within Him, just form. Also, not an eternal union since matter was not, prior it’s being.

Great that you say this, TS. Matter was not, prior to its being. Michael and Tony seem to have a diffrent idea about that.

that creation is nither a motion nor a change, something I suspect when using your definition will not make sense.

My whole argument is built in order to demonstrate that Aquinas notion of creation does involve change. I am aware that Aquinas denies this, but I am convinced he is wrong in this respect, for the reaosns I state in my argument.

Here’s a excerpt of that chapter to clarify, “For all motion or change is the “act of that which exists potentially, as such.” But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change.” I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this entire time we’ve all been talking past each other. To move on, what exactly is your definition of change?

Yes, for Aquinas, change is act of which exists potentially. But the point is that ‘prior to its being’ there is nothing that exists potentially. Creation, under Thomism, is the unexplained occurrence of something. It cannot be connected in a ny way to the Prime Mover because any attempt to connect it results in the Mover changing.

 

[belorg]

You are contradicting yourself: “'a timeless state of real nothingness”.
Read on.

So, where did I say it was a state of something? I said it was a state of nothing.

Go and study some law. If a person is responsible for the fall of that rock you are responsible for letting that rock kill you because it is considered to be the same rock - just as you are considered to be** the same person**. The notion that nothing ever stays the same is a crude oversimplification of reality. Don’t the fundamental laws of nature stay the same?

You are simply talking about something completely different from what Michael and I were talking about. Again, if you want to discuss your notions, you should do it in another thread, because that is not what we are talking about here.

The identity of a person or object is not determined solely by its attributes. (That amounts to phenomenalism, a theory that is generally rejected in the face of its insurmountable difficulties, notably its inconsistency with the principle of causality. )
The nature of reality is not determined solely by time or space.

I never said it was. the very fact you bring this up here proves you do not understand what we are taling about in this thread.

Read on.
I’m glad you agree that persons are **usually regarded as the same persons **and things are usually regarded as **the same things **(whether they are intact or not!). If a person deliberately caused the rock to kill you that person is responsible because it is the same person that used the rock and the same rock that was used to kill you.

See above.

1. The use of a word is not a reason.

The Thomist notion of immutability does not merely say that God essentially stays the same. If it did, I would also be an unmoved mover.

1. You have failed to explain why these statements are false:

Just read Aquinas.

1. You are you and nothing will ever alter that fact.

That may be true, but it is irrelevant here.

1. The essential “you” cannot be changed any more than truth and the principles of logic can be changed.

That may also be true.

1. A fact is eternal and immutable.

Same as above.

I really have no idea what you are trying to get at here, but if you really want to further this discussion, I’d appreciate it if you came to the point.

 

[tonyrey]

So, where did I say it was a state of something? I said it was a state of nothing.

“a state of nothing” is a meaningless phrase. Any description whatsoever of nothing is meaningless. It is absolutely negative. Since it doesn’t exist it can’t be a state - which is “the particular condition that** someone** or something is in at a specific time”.

If a person is responsible for the fall of that rock you are responsible for letting that rock kill you because it is considered to be the same rock - just as you are considered to be the same person. The notion that nothing ever stays the same is a crude oversimplification of reality. Don’t the fundamental laws of nature stay the same?

You are simply talking about something completely different from what Michael and I were talking about. Again, if you want to discuss your notions, you should do it in another thread, because that is not what we are talking about here.

Evasion! You cannot deny that a person doesn’t and cannot lose his or her identity.

The identity of a person or object is not determined solely by its attributes. (That amounts to phenomenalism, a theory that is generally rejected in the face of its insurmountable difficulties, notably its inconsistency with the principle of causality. )
The nature of reality is not determined solely by time or space.

I never said it was. the very fact you bring this up here proves you do not understand what we are taling about in this thread.

Another evasion! **The identity of a person or object is not determined solely by its attributes. **

I’m glad you agree that persons are usually regarded as the same persons and things are usually regarded as the same things (whether they are intact or not!). If a person deliberately caused the rock to kill you that person is responsible because it is the same person that used the rock and the same rock that was used to kill you.

See above.

Yet another evasion! You are ignoring the implications of the principle of causality.

1. The use of a word is not a reason.

The Thomist notion of immutability does not merely say that God essentially stays the same. If it did, I would also be an unmoved mover.

Non sequitur. You are not God!

1. You have failed to explain why these statements are false:

Just read Aquinas.

Fourth evasion!

1. You are you and nothing will ever alter that fact.

That may be true, but it is irrelevant here.

Irrelevant to the issue of identity?!

1. The essential “you” cannot be changed any more than truth and the principles of logic can be changed.

That may also be true.

Excellent!

1. A fact is eternal and immutable.

Same as above.

Excellent!

I really have no idea what you are trying to get at here, but if you really want to further this discussion, I’d appreciate it if you came to the point.

If you fail to understand the fact that one’s personal identity is not affected (i.e. doesn’t change) by the changes which a person causes you shouldn’t be discussing the question…

I leave others to judge whether your posts are reasonable because you are obviously unwilling to respond to my statements. There is no point in attempting to discuss the matter with some one who makes excuses for not answering.

 

[belorg]

“a state of nothing” is a meaningless phrase. Any description whatsoever of nothing is meaningless. It is absolutely negative. Since it doesn’t exist it can’t be a state - which is “the particular condition that** someone** or something is in at a specific time”.

You have just conceded that God is nothing and it is meaningful to descriobe God, since God obviously is not in ‘any specific time.’

Evasion! You cannot deny that a person doesn’t and cannot lose his or her identity.

Another evasion! **The identity of a person or object is not determined solely by its attributes. **

Yet another evasion! You are ignoring the implications of the principle of causality.

Non sequitur. You are not God!

Fourth evasion!

Irrelevant to the issue of identity?!

Excellent!

Excellent!

If you fail to understand the fact that one’s personal identity is not affected (i.e. doesn’t change) by the changes which a person causes you shouldn’t be discussing the question…

I leave others to judge whether your posts are reasonable because you are obviously unwilling to respond to my statements. There is no point in attempting to discuss the matter with some one who makes excuses for not answering.

The rest of your post makes it painfully obvious that on this matter you absolutely have no clue.

 

[tonyrey]

The rest of your post makes it painfully obvious that on this matter you absolutely have no clue.

Your final argumentum ad hominem impresses no one:

***Argumentum ad Hominem ***(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

 

[belorg]

Your final argumentum ad hominem impresses no one:

***Argumentum ad Hominem ***(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

I have nothing more to say to you on this matter.

 

[tonyrey]

Your final argumentum ad hominem impresses no one:

***Argumentum ad Hominem ***

Neither have I since it is unnecessary.