If you aren’t Klax (I can’t remember his real name right now), you’re his posting doppelganger! (As I think Kendall has already commented on too). Terse, obscure replies that nobody else could possibly decipher. World weary cynicism toward anyone naive enough to be optimistic about anything - especially of any religious nature.
Okay, I haven’t been reading enough of your stuff for that to be fair. You probably aren’t all that, it’s just the vibe I have from some glances.
And a predilection for $25.00 words, multiple adjectives, and a great sense of loss over the diminished reliability of the Pericope Adulterae.
Which ones? Where? Certainly not in my corner if evangelicalism.
At that point in the ‘proof’ Feser has not only not established that God is perfect, he hasn’t even associated his ‘purely actual actualizer’ with ‘God’.
So if it can only be shown that there cannot be two such entities “once it is establish God is actuality itself and perfect” then the proof is dependent on itself. It’s circular.
But that’s your version of the ‘proof’, not Feser’s.
Back to Feser:
That’s just the same assertion repeated. There is no justification provided; no reason or logic behind it. Nor is there anything in it that restricts it to ‘purely actual actualizers’. If it’s true, it’s true for any entities, whether actualized or not, physical or not, red or not.
I see no reason why there cannot be two or more undifferentiable entities, whether purely actual actualizers, hydrogen nuclei, or red snooker balls.
So until you or Feser can provide something more than mere assertion, that proof is flawed.
Clearly that doesn’t apply here.
I think it is you who needs the glasses.
Richard
Hydrogen nuclei are examples of potentials actualized and the only way to distinguish between objects is on such grounds. There can be no such distinguishing features in something that is actuality itself. There are no potentialities that actualize and in principle, there can be nothing to distinguish it from another such entity which means they would be the same. I mean if you are completely indistinguishable from something in every possible way, how could you not be the same object? This is very straight forward to me to the point of being tautological. You could distinguish between snooker balls that are atomically arranged in extremely similar fashion by location alone. Why is this potential actualized here and not over there. That doesn’t apply to actuality itself.
I don’t expect you to actually agree with Feser’s reasoning as you are an atheist. It would be odd if you did identify as such and simultaneously believed arguments show God exists.
Vinnie
That’s basically the question. Can there be multiple objects that are completely indistinguishable from each other. Feser says there can’t - but doesn’t justify this assertion.
Even if they periodically swap locations, in such a way that you can’t tell when it has happened? What if they time-share a single location, such that sometimes one is present, and sometimes another?
Feser’s logic is based on his claim that there cannot be multiple indistinguishable entities. But that claim is ungrounded.
‘Actuality’ is not the same as ‘a purely actual actualizer’.
Why can’t actuality (or a purely actual actualizer) be limited in location, and not have the potential to be somewhere else?
Why can’t multiple actualities overlap in location?
I think multiple itself implies a distinction between objects and that requires potentialities to be actualized. If every aspect of two objects are indistinguishable, the two objects are one and the same.
If I described an object to someone and you described an object to someone that were exactly the same in every detail including atomic arrangement, color, location, time, etc, I’d say we would be describing the exact same object. Without the possibility of a potentiality to actualize, there can be no distinguishable features and nothing to distinguish between multiple instance of pure being. I take this to be a clear indication of unity.
For me, to be here rather than there is an actualized potential. A cup of coffee doesn’t have to be here on my table. That it is (and exists as coffee) in the first place are because potentials are being actualized in the here and now in a hierarchical sense.
Swapping locations requires some potentials to be actualized and not others. Being itself cannot swap location. Seems to be a category error. Something cannot change location if it lacks potentiality altogether to be here or there.
God is called being itself or pure act (actus purus). That is what I meant by actuality itself.
Vinnie
Yes, that’s still the question. Whether there can be two or more objects that are indistinguishable.
What if they were exactly the same in every detail including atomic arrangement, color, etc, but not time and/or location? Still the exact same object?
But can you show unity?
Ok, but coffee cups aren’t subject to the same limitations or lack of as actualities or purely actual actualizers.
True. But it doesn’t stop two objects being indistinguishable.
It’s really the other way around. Pure act is called God. That’s the main flaw with proofs like Feser’s - they establish that something exists, then associate that with their preferred deity without confirming the association.
It is interesting to ponder how two protons would necessarily be indistinguishable. But the trivial answer to this so far as I can see is that they are not indistinguishable, as one has the property of being here and the other, over there. I.e. - they have different locations in space relative to stuff around them. That makes them two distinct objects. They will always have two different locations.
They are not the exact same object. They are two objects with similar internal arrangements in two different locations (actualized potentials). Being here rather than there is an actualized potential.
Location is a way to distinguish between objects and being in one location as opposed to being somewhere else is a case of a potential being actualized. A red snooker ball has the potential to be in my trunk just as it has to the potential to be in your trunk. To be in one location means that potential is being actualized.
I’d say he establishes certain divine attributes through metaphysical reasoning. You could disagree but he offers premises and arguments and defends them. And some Christians disagree with parts. For example, William Lane Craig and Ed Feser would probably disagree on divine simplicity. I am also pretty sure Feser states somewhere that connecting this divine being with Christianity would require a different sort of book altogether. He doesn’t make the leaps you suggest but you are free to consider his arguments incorrect.
Vinnie
Klax was actually one of my favorite people in jere that was by far one of the most helpful to me with better working through my faith. I tried to stay in another place called “ship of fools” because he was there but found it overwhelmingly annoying.
I have attempted it, and I do understand it – despite your denials you take much of Genesis 1 the same way the YECists do, as though it is teaching science. It isn’t – there’s not a stitch of science in the opening Creation tapestry. Then you apply your personal subjective definitions of various items to say “God wouldn’t be like that”, without asking if the text allows for God being like that.
Because myth is for teaching truth, and all you have to do to recognize that humans are fallen is to read and watch the news: we are borken, we do not even live up to our own standards.
So a major part of your loss of faith rests on someone else’s ignorance. That’s sad.
ALL literal readings of the ancient text are based on ignorance; you just got pissed on by one variety.
Seemingly you’ve never read the Gospels.
Quite so.
Which would suggest that an object such that there can be no objects indistinguishable from it must be omnipresent.
But you claim that my crit is not scientific. You can’t have it both ways.
If you do understand why I think it, just accept that I see Evolution as not being the same as other science and stop baiting me about it.
Richard
It’s because I’ve read them. The greatest story ever told for sure. But it’s not a humanly impossible fossil, it’s an entirely human one, forged from the Bronze Age. And once seen as that, try as one might, with all, nothing but, good will, it cannot be unseen. The ultimate naked emperor.
We do Richard. But apart from revulsion, terror at its existential, ontological implications, you have no reason. Period. Your faith is therefore weak, in that regard, so it has to distort, deny reality. On the same end of the spectrum as YEC. Perfect faith doesn’t do that.
Those here with a better, first class, and even postgraduate, doctoral level of scientific education in life sciences, do not have that problem. Their faith does not warp their knowledge.
You should not tilt at their windmills, but be reassured by their example. Even Dick Feynman didn’t understand quantum mechanics, but was humble enough to know that it was true. Go thy way Daniel. Where were you Job?
Not I.
Agreed.
No you do not. All you know is that I think it.
Precisely
You do not undersand why I thnk it. You do not think it possible to think it. You neither accept it, or allow it, as if you have the authority to stop me thinking it.
In the mean time you waste your time and mine arguing as if it can’t be thought
Mocking me and insulting me is not the way to change my mind. You will have to understand it and then argue against it. Just saying it can’t be is not an argument.
So like it or lump it. That is my standpoint and that is that.
Richard
(a) Yes we do. No we don’t.
(b) Glad you agree.
(c) Not glad you then diasagree.
(d) No we don’t.
(e) Nothing is. We do and then we won’t. It can’t be what?
(f) We know.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.