Posted: Aug 12, 2017 3:04 pm
Wortfish wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
To be analogous, it would have to be thus:
1. All cats eat their own offspring.
2. Cats can't survive if they all eat their offspring.
C. Therefore there must be a non-offspring eating cat.
C2. This cat is Bastet.
Actually, cats can survive if they eat their offspring, just not all of them. I duly note that you evaded the analogy completed.
Besides the second sentence being gibberish, that you think that your peurile semantic point actually works in your favor, is yet more evidence of your disengenuous behaviour.
If anyone failed to adress the analogy it's you. Your pointless semantic quibble does nothing to refute it.
Wortfish wrote:Again, your example is in no way analogous to the Cosmological argument.
It isn't analogous to the cosmological argument.
So you admit it has fuck all to do with it.
Wortfish wrote:
Rather, it shows that we don't have to regard a statement as absolutely and always true just because it is what we presently know to be true.
Except that it doesn't.
Fabricating two completely unrelated premises does nothing of the sort.
At best, you've just reaffirmed that you don't know how categorical statements work.
At worst you've just, again, refuted the cosmological argument.
If you admit that we don't have to regard a statement as absolutely and always true, then the first premise is false.
Wortfish wrote:
I think Hume had something to say on this regarding the problem of induction and the uniformity of nature. For example, just because we have only seen white swans doesn't mean that black swans don't exist. Similarly, we can't categorically claim that the laws of physics will always hold even if they have done so hitherto.
Meaning premise one of the cosmological argument is false. Do continue to demolish your own arguments.
Wortfish wrote:What a pathetic semantic point. The bolded bit means all moving things require a mover.
Not so.
And yet another blind counterfactual assertion.
Whatsoever X, means all things that are X.
That's how the English language works.
Wortfish wrote: There is a difference between "Whatever" and "All".
Not in the context of that sentence.
Wortfish wrote: I think it is the same in Dutch for "wat dan ook" and "alle".
In Dutch the sentence would read: Wat ook maar beweegd wordt door ander bewogen.
Which means all moving things are moved by other movers.
Wortfish wrote: I admit I used the word "all", but Aquinas was more cautious and careful.
He wasn't. He was more Shakespearean than you.
Wortfish wrote: He merely stated that things that move have been moved by something else
False, he said that whatever moves has been moved by something else. Meaning all things that move.
Wortfish wrote: - that is what we know to be true in our present understanding of moving things.
Stop lying.
More-over this is refuted by your point about inductive reasoning.
Wortfish wrote: He does not claim that this was always the case or that will continue to be so.
Except that he does, but do continue to lie. It will only serve to demonstrate that you've no interest in an honest discussion.
Wortfish wrote: But he does state that, if we assume it to have been true for events in the past, it sets up the problem of an infinite regress of movers.
Except that you still haven't demonstrated this to be a problem.
Wortfish wrote:Transparent dodging horseshit, is transparent. You have not demonstrated that science has proved that everything that is in motion was caused to move by another mover. That is because you can't, because there's a lot we don't know about the universe.
Science cannot "prove" anything.
Then you have no basis to assert that all things are moved by other movers.
Wortfish wrote: Science can merely make observations. These observations indicate that everything in motion has been moved by something else
Stop making shit up. You have not demonstrated this.
Wortfish wrote:.....up until a point in the distant past where a first mover is required.
This is an even bigger lie than first part of this sentence.
Wortfish wrote: When Hubble noticed that the galaxies were moving away from each other, he realised that this means they were closer together in the past.
At some point.
Wortfish wrote: Extrapolating, he realised that there must have been a point at which all space and matter arose from a singularity. Therefore, all the motion in the universe has its origins in the Big Bang, and the Big Bang must itself have been caused by an unmoved first mover.
False. That is true for our local representation of the universe. Not the entire universe as a whole.
Wortfish wrote:Stop dishonestly cutting the context of my posts to make it seem as if I haven't, when I have, repeatedly.
You have failed to refute the argument of Aquinas despite your total resistance.
Oh look, more pathetic lies.
Wortfish wrote: You have been called out over gravity, though.
Again a lie, more-over one that you've been repeatedly corrected on.
Wortfish wrote:From his limited knowledge. Again you have not demonstrated this to tbe universally true.
Science can only demonstrate what we presently know to be true, not what we hope to know in the future.
Science has not demonstrated it in either sense of the word.
Wortfish wrote:I don't care. Both you and Aquinas need to demonstrate that everything that moves require a mover.
Asserting it based on your personal ignorance does nothing.
To try and explain this to you,
You can stuff the patronising bullshit Wortfish.
Wortfish wrote:
imagine an object in space on a linear trajectory. You may claim that it has always been moving and was never moved.
I've done no such thing. Stop making shit up in a desperate attempt to burn straw-men.
Wortfish wrote:You may claim Newton's first law of motion supports this. But if it never was moved, and has always been moving, then that means it has travelled an infinite distance which is absurd if the size of the universe is finite.
Except we don't know whether our universe if finite or infinite.
Wortfish wrote:This is in reference to your constant insistence on the false dichotomy that mass is a phenomenon, not a cause. The point is that it is both.
The uneven distribution of mass, due to the movement of objects, is the cause of mass attraction (i.e gravity).
Once again you're offering a description, that fails to adress the actual point being made.
Yea, I don't blindly accept whatever anyone asserts, especially when I know that assertion to bases on faulty reasoning and made up shit. How dare I?
The only one refusing to engage in an honest discussion is you Wortfish. You're the one who keeps ignoring or dismissing out of hand multiple rebuttals. The one who keeps mindlessly regurgitating points that have already been refuted several times.
Wortfish wrote: If an infinite regress is impossible, then that means that the causal chain must be finite, which means it has a beginning, which means there is a first mover. How can you clam this is a blind assertion and not a logical inference?
Because that refers to your initial claim that infinite regress is impossible/absurd. That's the blind assertion that makes the rest of your argument invalid.
Wortfish wrote:If it takes action, ie moves, then according to the cosmological argument, it requires a mover.
If it is a first mover, then by definition, it does not require a mover.
And this is still a classical example of circular reasoning, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Wortfish wrote: To avoid the problem of an infinite regress
Again, you haven't demonstrated this to be a problem in the first place.
Wortfish wrote: there must be a first mover that is unlike all subsequent movers. Take a look for yourself at how and why a first mover is needed to generate a domino effect (0:20):
I don't have to.
According to premise 1 of the cosmological argument, that person tipping the domino also was moved by something else and that chain goes on ad infinitum.
Sticking your fingers in your ears won't change the facts Wortfish.
Wortfish wrote: Watch the video above that shows that the movement of the dominos depends on a first mover that is not a domino.
And as I said, according to the cosmological argument everything that moves requires a mover, including the person that is tipping the first domino.
Wortfish wrote:Only if you insist on an argument that asserts ALL things that move, require a mover.
The argument is contingent upon this observation.
Wortfish wrote: You have tried to refute it with your failed claim about gravity.
A more repetition of outright falsehoods. You should sign up for the world championship of lying. You'd probably get far.
Wortfish wrote:Except that it does not as your argument is based on blind assertions and circular reasoning.
No. It is based on observation (that moving things are moved),
Except that we don't observe or know that this is true for all things.
Wortfish wrote:refuting the impossible (the infinite regress)
Still haven't demonstrated that.
Wortfish wrote:and proposing the necessary (the first mover).
Still an invalid argument since both premises are not given in evidence.