Answers to Atheistic arguments

[johnmartin]

POWELL:
That's looking better. However, your problem is converting this concept of prime mover into a person.

JOHN MARTIN:
I’ve already shown the proof in summary form before.

POWELL:
Please post the relevant argument in Modus Ponens form.

If an act is without limit then it is not a body

God is an act without limit

Therefore God is not a body



If an act is not a body then it is a spirit

God is an act that is not a body

Therefore God is a spirit



If an act is a spirit then it is a person

God is an act that is a spirit

Therefore God is a person.

: JOHN MARTIN:
Gods existence has already been proven on this thread.

POWELL:
Hardly. If it has then God's nonexistence has been proven in this thread.

You have not proposed any counter arguments that show the proofs false. you answer above is a non sequitur.

: JOHN MARTIN:
It has been proven and you have not proven the opposite or shown any grave error in the proofs.


POWELL:
I've proven God doesn't exist about as much as you've proven God does exist. My formal arguments were just shorter.

you have not done this. You have basically ignored the proofs from movement and contingency and only brought up unrelated side issues. When you are pressed to show how your objections are related to the proofs you merely avoid quoting the proofs and do not interact with the proofs in any real way. You have consistently done this throughout the thread. It shows atheism is false and theism is easily proven true.

: POWELL:
I don't think you've posted them in MP form, but in Major-Minor form. I prefer MP form. I think it's better.


JOHN MARTIN:
You did this for the movement proof some time ago. The similar formulation would be made for contingency, perfection, order and causation. All the proofs are very similar in this respect.


POWELL:
Then it would seem they all end up concluding some concept, not necessarily some person. You still have the difficult problem of equating the concept to a person. Doing so would be personifying the concept which is generally a mistake so you would need to show why it would be correct in this special case. That the Catholic church approves wouldn't suffice for the non Catholics among us.

ok now you posts this as a syllogism to conclude to God as a concept from the proofs. This should be interesting.

: POWELL:
Then the parallel argument for God contains a non sequitur. It does not follow that if G actually exists then G is necessary. You need to use a different argument.

JOHN MARTIN:
What parallel argument for God?

POWELL:
The one that argues that if God (actually) exists then God is necessary.

No proof argues in this manner.

:

JOHN MARTIN:
The conclusion to the contingency proof is a necessary being and this being is very much unlike the contingent. The necessary not only has being, but IS being by nature. There is a big difference and shows no non sequitur.


POWELL:
To work, the conclusion should be a necessary CONCEPT. You would still need to prove that the necessary CONCEPT is a PERSON.

You have not shown the proofs conclude to a concept and from your past performance I’m not holding my breath to wait for you to do this. You can try to demonstrate that the proofs conclude to a concept. If you don’t, and you won’t your objection is answered.

: POWELL:
I would hope they can be found in every Catholic university.

What do you know about the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas that Catholic professors of philosophy who acknowledge the possibility of error don't know?


JOHN MARTIN:
You haven’t shown they do.

Also lots. I’m familiar with much of the best Thomists and much of the best arguments around. Many Catholic professors don’t use Thomas as much as they once did, but concentrate on other philosophers. Modern Thomists try to mix Thomas with Kant and Descarte and so on. It becomes a hodge-podge of truth and error. To be faithful to Thomas is to reject much of the enlightenment as bogus.


POWELL:
You've conceded enough. It's your amateur opinion they're mistaken for disregarding Aquinas. Why is it that so many Catholic professors don't use Aquinas as much as Catholics used to? It's my amateur suggestion they do that because they're more enlightened scientifically and philosophically than their predecessors were.

I’ve conceded nothing and once again you have provided no evidence to back your position. Show me the arguments these professors make to come to the conclusions you say they do. As you have not provided any evidence there is nothing to concede.

JOHN MARTIN:
Certainty comes from the nature of the science and the method used. The deductive method and philosophy are certain.

POWELL:
So, it's not possible that the deductive method and philosophy are wrong?

More non sequiturs and dead ends.

JOHN MARTIN:
Prime mover is required to account for the existence of movement. We know this from the first proof. The prime mover is pure act, but pure act is without limit, and only a spirit can be without limit in the real. As spirits are persons, God is then a person. This is a beautiful thing.


POWELL:
Now, that's something I can better deal with.

What is the logical requirement that the prime mover be pure act? Is inertia "pure act" or does inertia have "potency"? How about force? Is force "pure act" or does force have "potency"?

The prime mover or the first mover must be without potency. This has been proven on other posts. To be without potency is to be without limit. It is then an act not composed of potency and act, but an act without potency, which is known as pure act.

What is the logical requirement that pure act be without limit? Is pure act limited to being act or can it be something else like potency? If you mean unlimited in a specific way then what's the logical requirement that pure X be without that limit?

See above and the proof presented to Roy on a recent previous post that contains about 30 lines.

What is the basis for believing that there are real unlimited things (as opposed to them being concepts like infinity) other than scientific singularities? Would the density of a black hole singularity be limited or unlimited? Is a singularity spirit?

The movement is real, the principles used in the proof are based on the real and the conclusions to the proofs are real. Anything physical is not of itself a spirit.

What is the logical requirement that spirit be personal? Have scientific observations of spirit verified that it is always personal or is that something theists like you reason to be the case based on dreams and hallucinations or what?

Spirit is the root cause of intellectual knowledge and reason. The will is the power to appetise following upon the knowledge obtained through the intellect. The person is the owner of all the properties subject to that person. For example each person is the owner of his own mind and body as they are subject to the person. The person is an intellective substance that is incommunicable in the order of substance and as such each person is completely unique and each person has rights to be treated as a free moral agent. There is a lot more to this, but this is a summary version to give you a feel of what a person is.

: POWELL: It's logical that "movement" requires a "mover" where "mover" is the cause or reason or explanation for the movement. But that's about as far as you can go. AFAICT, there's no logical requirement that the mover be a force or a person or a spirit. For accelerated motion, "force" is the mover, but for uniform movement "inertia" is the mover, for more general changes like changing from "potency" to "act" the mover is the "changer," a logical concept, not necessarily a person.


JOHN MARTIN:
You ignore the proof for person again. This is disappointing.


POWELL:
I responded to what you posted above since it made some sense to me. Now it's your turn to respond.

you need to directly respond to the proof presented otherwise you have not made a real objection.



[QUOTE]: POWELL:
My point is that Aquinas and you relied on spacial movement as an important example demonstrating this idea. Now, you don't. I propose that Aquinas wouldn't either if he understood what you now understand. Furthermore, I suggest that Aquinas wouldn't have promoted the arguments you are promoting if Aquinas understood what scientific-literate people understand. The question then is why are you? Hero worship of Aquinas? Fear of the slippery slope: if you surrender this argument then you're on the slope to complete apostasy?


JOHN MARTIN:
The example given was used to highlight the fundamental notion of movement used in the proof, that movement is a transition from potency to act. Your objection regarding inertia and spatial movement avoids this very fundamental notion. The slippery slope is really a stair case you need to climb to embrace the truth of the conclusions to the proofs that God is.

: POWELL:
They are related. All things are related. Perhaps they aren't closely related.

Not closely at all and it bears no influence regarding any apparent error in the proof for movement.

JOHN MARTIN:
The cosmology objection does not show the proofs to be false. The objection is irrelevant.


POWELL:The arguments were partly supported by a mistaken cosmology. Apparently, similar arguments can be phrased that avoid the mistaken cosmology similar to how modern arguments for God can avoid the mistaken cosmology of ancient theists.

The proofs are not derived or related to anything essential in cosmology.

: JOHN MARTIN:
I want you to show me how the sweeping statement that modern understanding of movement some how affects the proof from movement. Please provide the evidence. I think this is a reasonable request.

POWELL:
The worldview of Aquinas included outdated notions of motion. One's worldview affects one's thoughts. One's thoughts about X affect the arguments about X one supports. So, probably Aquinas' outdated notions of spacial movement affected his arguments dealing with movement.


JOHN MARTIN:
It doesn’t. Still you haven’t shown it does within the proof


POWELL:
I argue that probably Aquinas' outdated notions of spacial movement affected his arguments dealing with movement.

If you oppose that then on what basis do you argue that probably it's not the case? Because you can phrase similar arguments without reference to his outdated physics?

Yes, the proofs are not based on physics but on the nature of movement that is fundamentally the simple notion of a transition from potency to act.

JOHN MARTIN:
Were men possibles before men existed

Yep


POWELL:
Then do this thought experiment, John Martin. Imagine the Earth before man appeared. Let's go back 66 million years to the end of the age of Dinosaurs. Can you imagine that? Of course you can. Imagine T-Rex circling triceratops looking for a good place for his powerful jaws to grab onto. With a thought you can give the victory to the triceratops or start over and give the victory to the T-Rex. With a thought you can send an asteroid hurtling into the planet and kill them all off or stop the asteroid dead in its tracks and send it off to destroy the home planet of the Borg. What power you have! Are there any men there 66 million years ago? We would usually say no, but of course there is a man there. There is you there controlling everything that happens. Nothing happens in your imagination without your input. Since you have such great power to create or destroy the world of your imagination you imagine that there's some personal entity who has that kind of power over the real world. You call that entity God. However, your God remains in your imagination.

This has nothing to do with what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that a possible requires and intellect and as man is a possible an intellect must have existed before man existed. Heres your favourite logic again



Establish a thing known as an object

If a thing is known, then it is known as an object of a power

A things is known

Therefore it is an object of a power.



Establish a mental being as an object of a power

If some things are not real in act but known by a power, then those things are mental beings as objects of the power

Some things are not real in act but known by a power

Therefore , those things are mental beings as objects of the power



Establish a possible as a potency

If a possible is not real in act, then a possible is real in potency.

A possible is not real in act

Therefore a possible is real in potency



Establish a possible as an objective potency

If a possible is not a real thing in act but only a real thing in potency, then a possible is an objective potency known by an intellect

A possible is not a real thing in act but only a real thing in potency

Therefore a possible is an objective potency known by an intellect



Establish an intellect to know a possible as an objective potency

If there is objective potency, then there is an intellect knowing

there is objective potency

Therefore there is an intellect knowing



Establish a contingent being as a possible prior to it existing (may not need this step)

If a contingent being, before it exists, is a possible being, then an intellect is required to exist to have the possible as an objective potency.

A contingent being, before it exists, is a possible being

Therefore an intellect is required to exist to have the possible as an objective potency.



Establish the intellect knowing the possible can only be either contingent or necessary

If there is an intellect knowing, then the intellect is either contingent or necessary

There is an intellect knowing

Therefore the intellect is either contingent or necessary



Establish a contingent being is ordered to an end by another

If a contingent intellect is not its own cause of ordination towards knowledge as an end, then it is ordered to the end by other.

A contingent intellect is not its own cause of ordination towards an end

Therefore it is ordered to the end by other.



Establish the other as an active agent

If a contingent intellect is ordered by other, then it is passively ordained by another, which is an actively ordering agent

A contingent intellect is ordered by other

Therefore it is passively ordained by another, which is an actively ordering agent



Establish the agent as an active unordered orderer (may need further explanation)

If there is passive ordination in intelligent contingent beings, then there is an active unordered ordering intellect, actively ordering the contingent.

There is passive ordination in intelligent contingent beings

Therefore there is an active unordered ordering intellect, actively ordering the contingent.



Establish active unordered ordering intellect is not passively ordered

If there is an active unordered ordering intellect, then this intellect is not passively ordained

There is an active unordered ordering intellect

Therefore this intellect is not passively ordained



Establish an intellect without potency

If an intellect exists that is not passively ordained, then there exists an intellect that does not receive ordination from other, which is to be an intellect without potency

An intellect exists that is not passively ordained

Therefore there exists an intellect that does not receive ordination from other, which is to be an intellect without potency.



Conclude to the intellect without potency is God

If an intellect without potency exists, then God is

An intellect without potency exists

Therefore God is



Ok so now I have shown using your favourite logical syllogism that God is from possibles. Frankly I think it can be more simply stated in other ways and I have no doubt you will contest one or more of the above. I may have left out some intermediary steps along the way that can be filled in as required. In the future I will not use this method again as I find it cumbersome and somewhat unnecessarily complex.



I’m out of time.

JM

[Roy]

Chock full of potencies. The prime is without potency as has been shown by my proof and your failed proof to demonstrate otherwise. For you to prove there are several prime movers, you need to prove there must be several and not may be several, for may be and can be are potencies.

Absurd. The 'potency' of whether something exists does not mean that the something has 'potency' if it does exist.

Further, even if your claim that there must be a single prime mover is true (which you still haven't shown), that doesn't specify which of the myriad possible prime movers is the actual one. Therefore by your above argument, whichever singular prime mover exists has potency, because a different prime mover might have existed instead.

In any case, it is enough to show that there may be several prime movers to refute any 'proof' that there is only one.

Your grasp of logic still lacks opposable thumbs.

1. Act is does be

There are no nouns in that sentence. Try rewriting it in English.

Act is defined as ‘does be’.

'does be' is not English. It is ungrammatical and meaningless. If one had to assign meaning to it, there are at least two possible inconsistent interpretations. It's not even clear whether you are defining an action, a property, or an abstract concept.

You've effectively said that Act is gibberish.

Tell me specifically which terms you want defined.

'Act' and 'does be'.

Show me where. So far you have evidence free assertion.

Here: "Or, IOW a thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act"

This leads directly to 'Any thing not limited does not actually exist'

Roy

[johnmartin]

JM- : Originally posted by johnmartin

Chock full of potencies. The prime is without potency as has been shown by my proof and your failed proof to demonstrate otherwise. For you to prove there are several prime movers, you need to prove there must be several and not may be several, for may be and can be are potencies.

Absurd. The 'potency' of whether something exists does not mean that the something has 'potency' if it does exist.

May be also infers may not, but can be, which is potency. You need to show must be or else there is potency. You also ignore the conclusion of real distinction between essence and be and also the real limit of both, which is that several spirits are then not prime, for they are contingent and the contingent are efficiently caused by the prime (which is subsistent be), which is other than the several.

R- Further, even if your claim that there must be a single prime mover is true (which you still haven't shown),

Then how about showing a thorough rebuttal for a change and stop giving me the assertion routine.

R- that doesn't specify which of the myriad possible prime movers is the actual one. Therefore by your above argument, whichever singular prime mover exists has potency, because a different prime mover might have existed instead.

The prime act is the act without potency.

As potency is the cause of limit and multiplicity, to be without potency in both the orders of essence and existence is then to have essence and existence without limit.

It also means the essence is not really diverse from existence. For real diversity is to have potency

The prime act not only has, but IS identity of essence and existence, or IOW the prime acts essence is to exist.

As all other acts have potency, all other acts have real diversity between essence and existence.

All other acts then have a participation in existence and in essence.

- In any case, it is enough to show that there may be several prime movers to refute any 'proof' that there is only one.

Ok You’re the expert, you tell me

1. The manners of infinity in a spirit and why
2. The cause of the multitude of spirits
3. The manner in which form is had by spirits
4. The manner in which ‘be’ is had by spirits
5. The operative powers in spirits
6. How potency fits into the above

Then show me how all the above is tied into your proof of several prime movers that are spirits.

1. Act is does be
There are no nouns in that sentence. Try rewriting it in English.

Act is defined as ‘does be’.

'does be' is not English. It is ungrammatical and meaningless. If one had to assign meaning to it, there are at least two possible inconsistent interpretations. It's not even clear whether you are defining an action, a property, or an abstract concept.

You've effectively said that Act is gibberish.

Words are defined with words that are better known so the most simple words cannot be strictly defined, but rather described as an improper definition. In the proof the definition of ‘act’ is improperly made through description

Act is

1. an operation
2. form or essence, such as form or essence of water, ‘does be’ water
3. designates existence such as iron exists, or iron ‘does be’ (does exist)

1 and 2 are used in the 30 line proof.

Likewise potency is improperly defined through description

1. what can be an operation
2. primary matter, when combined with the form of water, to limit the form of water to this particular water
3. designates what can exist, which is a possible.

In the 30 line proof, potency is of itself in act with regard to essence, but also in potency to some further act (more essence and be). For example a block of marble is in act marble but in potency to have more marble. Potency as described in line 2 is then used in the proof.

JM- Show me where. So far you have evidence free assertion.

Here: "Or, IOW a thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act"

This leads directly to 'Any thing not limited does not actually exist'

Roy

A thing actually existing isthen limited by the contrary of the act.

This leads directly to a thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.

Now that’s better.

JM

[John Powell]

POWELL:
That's looking better. However, your problem is converting this concept of prime mover into a person.

JOHN MARTIN:
I’ve already shown the proof in summary form before.

POWELL:
Please post the relevant argument in Modus Ponens form.

JOHN MARTIN:
If an act is without limit then it is not a body

God is an act without limit

Therefore God is not a body

POWELL:
Thank you for trying to post your arguments in M.P. form. Have some pearls.

However, you didn't quite do them right. Let me correct them.

1. If God is an act without limit then God is not a body
2. God is an act without limit
Therefore
3. God is not a body

Since the argument has the M.P. form it is valid. Furthermore, I don't see the first premise being a problem. The controversial premise is the second one. Why should I believe that God exists, let alone that God is some impersonal "act without limit"? I understand God is supposed to be a person, while "act" is something impersonal.

JOHN MARTIN:
If an act is not a body then it is a spirit

God is an act that is not a body

Therefore God is a spirit

POWELL:
Again, let me revise it:

4. If God is an act that is not a body then God is a spirit
5. God is an act that is not a body
Therefore
6. God is a spirit

Now, I see problems with both premises. What logical requirement is there that if G is an act that isn't a body then G is a spirit? Running is an act that isn't a body. So, running is a spirit? I don't see that.

JOHN MARTIN:
If an act is a spirit then it is a person

God is an act that is a spirit

Therefore God is a person.

POWELL:
So,

7. If God is an act that is spirit then God is a person
8. God is an act that is spirit
Therefore
9. God is a person.

Besides the usual problem with the second premise, the first premise is also a problem. What logical requirement is there that if G is a spirit then G is a person? Is it that all spirits are persons? Is that what observations of spirits have shown or are you just affirming it? In other words, why can't you have spirit that isn't personal?

JOHN MARTIN:
Gods existence has already been proven on this thread.

POWELL:
Hardly. If it has then God's nonexistence has been proven in this thread.

JOHN MARTIN:
You have not proposed any counter arguments that show the proofs false. you answer above is a non sequitur.

POWELL:
In that case:

You have not proposed any arguments that counter mine that show my proofs to be false.

Impasse.

JOHN MARTIN:
It has been proven and you have not proven the opposite or shown any grave error in the proofs.

POWELL:
I've proven God doesn't exist about as much as you've proven God does exist. My formal arguments were just shorter.

JOHN MARTIN:
you have not done this. You have basically ignored the proofs from movement and contingency and only brought up unrelated side issues. When you are pressed to show how your objections are related to the proofs you merely avoid quoting the proofs and do not interact with the proofs in any real way. You have consistently done this throughout the thread. It shows atheism is false and theism is easily proven true.

POWELL:
That doesn't follow. My actions in this debate do not determine whether atheism or theism is true. Otherwise, I could point to some failed Catholic debater and argue that because he failed therefore Catholism is false.

Lately, I've tended to ignore your arguments from movement and contingency because they were poorly worded and the arguments were poorly organized. You're doing much better now, thank you. Despite that confession and contrary to your suggestion, I have provided formal atheistic arguments.

POWELL:
I don't think you've posted them in MP form, but in Major-Minor form. I prefer MP form. I think it's better.

JOHN MARTIN:
You did this for the movement proof some time ago. The similar formulation would be made for contingency, perfection, order and causation. All the proofs are very similar in this respect.

POWELL:
Then it would seem they all end up concluding some concept, not necessarily some person. You still have the difficult problem of equating the concept to a person. Doing so would be personifying the concept which is generally a mistake so you would need to show why it would be correct in this special case. That the Catholic church approves wouldn't suffice for the non Catholics among us.

JOHN MARTIN:
ok now you posts this as a syllogism to conclude to God as a concept from the proofs. This should be interesting.

POWELL:
I don't understand. Are you asking me to do something?

POWELL:
Then the parallel argument for God contains a non sequitur. It does not follow that if G actually exists then G is necessary. You need to use a different argument.

JOHN MARTIN:
What parallel argument for God?

POWELL:
The one that argues that if God (actually) exists then God is necessary.

JOHN MARTIN:
No proof argues in this manner.

The conclusion to the contingency proof is a necessary being and this being is very much unlike the contingent. The necessary not only has being, but IS being by nature. There is a big difference and shows no non sequitur.

POWELL:
Well, I thought you were arguing in that manner.

Earlier the following words were exchanged:

POWELL (#310):
Even if an argument concluded that God actually exists, how would that disprove that possibly God does not exist?

JOHN MARTIN (#311)
Through the laws of reason that have proven his existence.

POWELL:
If an argument proves God's existence, that implies it proves God ACTUALLY exists. So, you seem to be answering my question about how such an argument would disprove that possibly God does not exist by implying an argument in which God being proven actual proves God is necessary. Did you mean something else in your reply? Did you mean to say "Through the laws of reason that have proven his necessary existence."?

POWELL:
To work, the conclusion should be a necessary CONCEPT. You would still need to prove that the necessary CONCEPT is a PERSON.

JOHN MARTIN:
You have not shown the proofs conclude to a concept and from your past performance I’m not holding my breath to wait for you to do this. You can try to demonstrate that the proofs conclude to a concept. If you don’t, and you won’t your objection is answered.

POWELL:
Ok, then let me compose an argument proving it to you.

1. If John Martin conceives of God then God is a concept in John Martin's mind.
2. John Martin conceives of God.
Therefore
3. God is a concept in John Martin's mind.

Now, try to deny either of those premises.

Note that being a concept does not prevent the thing from also being real.

POWELL:
You've conceded enough. It's your amateur opinion they're mistaken for disregarding Aquinas. Why is it that so many Catholic professors don't use Aquinas as much as Catholics used to? It's my amateur suggestion they do that because they're more enlightened scientifically and philosophically than their predecessors were.

JOHN MARTIN:
I’ve conceded nothing and once again you have provided no evidence to back your position. Show me the arguments these professors make to come to the conclusions you say they do.
. . .
As you have not provided any evidence there is nothing to concede.

POWELL:
You conceded that "Many Catholic professors don't use Thomas as much as they once did, . . ." So, that's not something I need to support for you. The controversy between us is whether they're justified. I think they are. You don't. Perhaps we should leave it at that. If you really want more from me about that then specify what you want.

JOHN MARTIN:
Certainty comes from the nature of the science and the method used. The deductive method and philosophy are certain.

POWELL:
So, it's not possible that the deductive method and philosophy are wrong?

JOHN MARTIN:
More non sequiturs and dead ends.

POWELL:
How is a question a non sequitur?

JOHN MARTIN:
Prime mover is required to account for the existence of movement. We know this from the first proof. The prime mover is pure act, but pure act is without limit, and only a spirit can be without limit in the real. As spirits are persons, God is then a person. This is a beautiful thing.

POWELL:
Now, that's something I can better deal with.

What is the logical requirement that the prime mover be pure act? Is inertia "pure act" or does inertia have "potency"? How about force? Is force "pure act" or does force have "potency"?

JOHN MARTIN:
The prime mover or the first mover must be without potency. This has been proven on other posts.

POWELL:
I understood that you wish to define "act" and "potency" to be mutually exclusive, but I'm still having problems with that. My questions about the future being potentially now relate to that problem.

JOHN MARTIN:
To be without potency is to be without limit. It is then an act not composed of potency and act, but an act without potency, which is known as pure act.

POWELL:
Oh, so an act CAN have potency, but "pure act" is act without potency. I seem to have missed that earlier.

What makes you think there is a real thing corresponding to your concept of "pure act" or that the first mover has to be pure act rather than act with potency?

What about "inertia" and "force"? Are they examples of acts with potency?

POWELL:
What is the logical requirement that pure act be without limit? Is pure act limited to being act or can it be something else like potency? If you mean unlimited in a specific way then what's the logical requirement that pure X be without that limit?

JOHN MARTIN:
See above and the proof presented to Roy on a recent previous post that contains about 30 lines.

POWELL:
Maybe later.

POWELL:
What is the basis for believing that there are real unlimited things (as opposed to them being concepts like infinity) other than scientific singularities? Would the density of a black hole singularity be limited or unlimited? Is a singularity spirit?

JOHN MARTIN:
The movement is real, the principles used in the proof are based on the real and the conclusions to the proofs are real. Anything physical is not of itself a spirit.

POWELL:
Are inertia and force physical, spirit, or what?

POWELL:
What is the logical requirement that spirit be personal? Have scientific observations of spirit verified that it is always personal or is that something theists like you reason to be the case based on dreams and hallucinations or what?

JOHN MARTIN:
Spirit is the root cause of intellectual knowledge and reason. The will is the power to appetise following upon the knowledge obtained through the intellect. The person is the owner of all the properties subject to that person. For example each person is the owner of his own mind and body as they are subject to the person. The person is an intellective substance that is incommunicable in the order of substance and as such each person is completely unique and each person has rights to be treated as a free moral agent. There is a lot more to this, but this is a summary version to give you a feel of what a person is.

POWELL
Well, the controversy begins with your first sentence. So, I don't see that you've presented the logical requirement that spirit be personal. You've basically just argued that it is.

POWELL:
It's logical that "movement" requires a "mover" where "mover" is the cause or reason or explanation for the movement. But that's about as far as you can go. AFAICT, there's no logical requirement that the mover be a force or a person or a spirit. For accelerated motion, "force" is the mover, but for uniform movement "inertia" is the mover, for more general changes like changing from "potency" to "act" the mover is the "changer," a logical concept, not necessarily a person.

JOHN MARTIN:
You ignore the proof for person again. This is disappointing.

POWELL:
I responded to what you posted above since it made some sense to me. Now it's your turn to respond.

JOHN MARTIN:
you need to directly respond to the proof presented otherwise you have not made a real objection.

POWELL:
I've made a real objection if I really object. Perhaps I haven't made a proper objection.

What proof is it you want me to respond to? Please post it in M.P. form below.

POWELL:
The arguments were partly supported by a mistaken cosmology. Apparently, similar arguments can be phrased that avoid the mistaken cosmology similar to how modern arguments for God can avoid the mistaken cosmology of ancient theists.

JOHN MARTIN:
The proofs are not derived or related to anything essential in cosmology.

POWELL:
The arguments of Aquinas derived from his mind. They were affected by his worldview. That you can compose similar arguments ignoring his worldview doesn't change this.

POWELL:
I argue that probably Aquinas' outdated notions of spacial movement affected his arguments dealing with movement.

If you oppose that then on what basis do you argue that probably it's not the case? Because you can phrase similar arguments without reference to his outdated physics?

JOHN MARTIN:
Yes, the proofs are not based on physics but on the nature of movement that is fundamentally the simple notion of a transition from potency to act.

POWELL:
Then why did you use examples from physics to support your argument?

JOHN MARTIN:
Were men possibles before men existed

Yep

POWELL:
Then do this thought experiment, John Martin. Imagine the Earth before man appeared. Let's go back 66 million years to the end of the age of Dinosaurs. Can you imagine that? Of course you can. Imagine T-Rex circling triceratops looking for a good place for his powerful jaws to grab onto. With a thought you can give the victory to the triceratops or start over and give the victory to the T-Rex. With a thought you can send an asteroid hurtling into the planet and kill them all off or stop the asteroid dead in its tracks and send it off to destroy the home planet of the Borg. What power you have! Are there any men there 66 million years ago? We would usually say no, but of course there is a man there. There is you there controlling everything that happens. Nothing happens in your imagination without your input. Since you have such great power to create or destroy the world of your imagination you imagine that there's some personal entity who has that kind of power over the real world. You call that entity God. However, your God remains in your imagination.

JOHN MARTIN:
This has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

POWELL:
It explains to what extent I agree with your claim that possibles require an intellect.

JOHN MARTIN:
What I’m saying is that a possible requires and intellect and as man is a possible an intellect must have existed before man existed.

POWELL:
Yes, but the intellect that is required is somebody like you, John Martin. You are the one who is conceiving of things before man existed on Earth. You are the one who imagines going back in time to before man existed on Earth. You are the one who imagines angels imagining man. You are the one who imagines going back in time to before angels existed. You are the one who imagines God imagining angels. I am capable of imagining the same thing, but I don't think it's real.

JOHN MARTIN:
Heres your favourite logic again

Establish a thing known as an object

If a thing is known, then it is known as an object of a power

A things is known

Therefore it is an object of a power.

POWELL:
I thought you challenged my claim that an object is a thing. Have you reversed yourself on that?

I reject your conditional. Some known things are not known as objects of power.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish a mental being as an object of a power

If some things are not real in act but known by a power, then those things are mental beings as objects of the power

Some things are not real in act but known by a power

Therefore , those things are mental beings as objects of the power

POWELL:
I'm uncertain about your conditional. Maybe it's ok.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish a possible as a potency

If a possible is not real in act, then a possible is real in potency.

A possible is not real in act

Therefore a possible is real in potency

POWELL:
I don't understand your conditional, but I am inclined to associate "possible" with "potency."

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish a possible as an objective potency

If a possible is not a real thing in act but only a real thing in potency, then a possible is an objective potency known by an intellect

A possible is not a real thing in act but only a real thing in potency

Therefore a possible is an objective potency known by an intellect

POWELL:
Well, concerning this, critical thinkers would usually say something to the effect that there are things that are possible even if nobody knows it.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish an intellect to know a possible as an objective potency

If there is objective potency, then there is an intellect knowing

there is objective potency

Therefore there is an intellect knowing

POWELL:
Also, concerning this, critical thinkers would usually say something to the effect that a thing is objectively true despite anybody knowing it.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish a contingent being as a possible prior to it existing (may not need this step)

If a contingent being, before it exists, is a possible being, then an intellect is required to exist to have the possible as an objective potency.

A contingent being, before it exists, is a possible being

Therefore an intellect is required to exist to have the possible as an objective potency.

POWELL:
The problem here is that "contingent being" is a concept which requires a conceiver. You are such a conceiver. You are the one who conceives of beings being possible before they exist. I don't think either angels or God exist. That you imagine they exist isn't persuasive to me. I would like to see them for myself.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish the intellect knowing the possible can only be either contingent or necessary

If there is an intellect knowing, then the intellect is either contingent or necessary

There is an intellect knowing

Therefore the intellect is either contingent or necessary

POWELL:
That one seems ok.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish a contingent being is ordered to an end by another

If a contingent intellect is not its own cause of ordination towards knowledge as an end, then it is ordered to the end by other.

A contingent intellect is not its own cause of ordination towards an end

Therefore it is ordered to the end by other.

POWELL:
Well, that seems ok provided "other" could be something like nature.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish the other as an active agent

If a contingent intellect is ordered by other, then it is passively ordained by another, which is an actively ordering agent

A contingent intellect is ordered by other

Therefore it is passively ordained by another, which is an actively ordering agent

POWELL:
That also seems ok provided the active agent can be something like "nature."

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish the agent as an active unordered orderer (may need further explanation)

If there is passive ordination in intelligent contingent beings, then there is an active unordered ordering intellect, actively ordering the contingent.

There is passive ordination in intelligent contingent beings

Therefore there is an active unordered ordering intellect, actively ordering the contingent.

POWELL:
NICE TRY slipping "intellect" in the consequent. Why would the "active unordered orderer" have to be an intellect? Why couldn't it be something impersonal like nature?

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish active unordered ordering intellect is not passively ordered

If there is an active unordered ordering intellect, then this intellect is not passively ordained

There is an active unordered ordering intellect

Therefore this intellect is not passively ordained

POWELL:
I guess that's ok if by "ordained" you mean "ordered." If you don't mean that then the conditional appears to be a non sequitur.

JOHN MARTIN:
Establish an intellect without potency

If an intellect exists that is not passively ordained, then there exists an intellect that does not receive ordination from other, which is to be an intellect without potency

An intellect exists that is not passively ordained

Therefore there exists an intellect that does not receive ordination from other, which is to be an intellect without potency.

POWELL:
I don't see the logical connection between "not passively ordained" and "without potency" so the conditional appears to be a non sequitur.

JOHN MARTIN:
Conclude to the intellect without potency is God

If an intellect without potency exists, then God is

An intellect without potency exists

Therefore God is

POWELL:
That could be ok provided the God there was not equated to the trinitarian God you believe in.

JOHN MARTIN:
Ok so now I have shown using your favourite logical syllogism that God is from possibles. Frankly I think it can be more simply stated in other ways and I have no doubt you will contest one or more of the above. I may have left out some intermediary steps along the way that can be filled in as required. In the future I will not use this method again as I find it cumbersome and somewhat unnecessarily complex.

POWELL:
If you wish to clearly communicate your reasoning to me then I encourage you to stick with the M.P. form and to avoid the major-minor form.

It seems to me that the most important intermediary step you lack is going from "active unordered orderer" to "active unordered intellect orderer."

JOHN MARTIN:
I’m out of time.

JM

POWELL:
Cheers.

John Powell

[Roy]

[font=Arial] May be also infers may not, but can be, which is potency. You need to show must be or else there is potency.

Sure, but it's potency of the universe, not potency of the specific entity. If multiple prime movers do exist, that potency is realised.

I note you've ignored the point that even if there is only one proime mover, there are many possibilities for the identity of that prime mover, so the prime mover has potency in this way too.

You also ignore the conclusion of real distinction between essence and be and also the real limit of both, which is that several spirits are then not prime, for they are contingent and the contingent are efficiently caused by the prime (which is subsistent be), which is other than the several.

The usual assertion, somewhat more incoherently expressed than before.

Then how about showing a thorough rebuttal for a change and stop giving me the assertion routine.

No. It would be a waste of my time because you wouldn't understand it, and no-one else seems interested.

The prime act is the act without potency.

But Act is 'does be'. So this means
The prime does be is the does be without potency. Yes?

As potency is the cause of limit and multiplicity,

Yes, you've said that before. You didn't justify it then, and you haven't now. I see no reason to concur.

The prime act not only has, but IS identity of essence and existence, or IOW the prime acts essence is to exist.

So now there isn't a prime mover, but a prime act? Which is it?

[quote]

In any case, it is enough to show that there may be several prime movers to refute any 'proof' that there is only one.[]/quote]
Ok You’re the expert, you tell me

1. The manners of infinity in a spirit and why
2. The cause of the multitude of spirits
3. The manner in which form is had by spirits
4. The manner in which ‘be’ is had by spirits
5. The operative powers in spirits
6. How potency fits into the above

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, which was a basic logical principle completely unrelated to any specific examples. You might as well have said 'Oh yeah? Well prove the Pope is a fish!' It would have been equally apposite, equally impressive, and an equally blatant attempt to avoid having to give a relevant response.

But if you really want the answer, it's that spirits as you imaghine them don't exist, so don't have infinity, aren't a multitude, don't 'be', don't have form, don't have operative powers and therefore have the ultimate in 'potency'.

But congratulations in finally learning the difference between your and you're.

Then show me how all the above is tied into your proof of several prime movers that are spirits.

I have not posted a 'proof of several prime movers that are spirits'.

Act is

1. an operation
2. form or essence, such as form or essence of water, ‘does be’ water
3. designates existence such as iron exists, or iron ‘does be’ (does exist)

1 and 2 are used in the 30 line proof.

So your proof uses the same term for two different concepts. This is enough to reject your proof, due to possible equivocation.

And if 'does be' means 'exists', then the second meaning is actually two discrete meanings that you don't recognise are different, leading to a high probability that there is equivocation. It also leads to wondering why you use the incomprehensible term 'does be' when you could just write 'exists' and be perfectly clear.

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act.

This leads directly to a thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.

Now that’s better.

No, it's worse. Much worse.

This was my deduction:

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Substitue the concepts for symbols: X = 'actually existing'; Y = 'limited'; Z = 'the contrary of the act'

A thing X is then Y by Z
or X -> Z -> Y
take the contrapositive:
not Y -> not Z -> not X
thus not Y -> not X
reinsert the concepts:
A thing not limited is not actually existing.

This is yours:

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act

A thing X is then Y by Z
or X -> Z -> Y

You derived this: A thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.

That maps to
A thing X not Y is to be without Z
or (X and not Y) -> not Z

Would you care to explain how to logically derive (X and not Y) -> not Z from X -> Z -> Y?*

I don't think you can do this. I don't think you can even understand this. I expect you to respond with either some meaningless waffle that might as well be 'The pope is a fish', or go into a snit and refuse to answer. Either type of response, or none at all, would be just more confirmation that you are completely clueless about basic logic, and you will not even admit it to yourself. Hence no 'proof' you ever give will have any value, since it could only ever be right by accident.

Roy

*For others: I know this can be done, and I know it wouldn't help JM in the slightest.

[johnmartin]

: Originally posted by johnmartin

May be also infers may not, but can be, which is potency. You need to show must be or else there is potency.

Sure, but it's potency of the universe, not potency of the specific entity. If multiple prime movers do exist, that potency is realised.

I note you've ignored the point that even if there is only one proime mover, there are many possibilities for the identity of that prime mover, so the prime mover has potency in this way too.

If its possible or may be or can be, then it cannot be the prime, because to be the prime is to have identity of power, essence and be. For if there is real distinction between essence, be and power it has at these potencies

Real diversity between essence, be and power. But diversity is then in potency to be united by other. For a prime mover to have such diversity is then to be moved to exist and to be conserved in existence by another agent that does not have such real diversity. Such a prime mover, is then not even possibly prime, but must be only a secondary, contingent agent.

Real diversity between power and act. The power is a can act, moved by other to act. But to be moved by other is to have potency actualised by other. But to be moved by other means the other is the prime.

Both the above show a being with potency cannot possibly be the prime. Therefore several prime movers are not even possible and the very notion is absurd.

Also with your attempted proof regarding identity of spirits, you have repeatedly used the words such as may be and can be to indicate spirits possible identity within the categories. However, to use such terms shows your mindset is only according to contingent beings. For what is essential to a contingent being can properly be stated with regard to what can be. But regarding what is stated about the essence of the necessary as prime, the language of can be, may be and possible is absurd. To use such language is to reduce the necessary to the contingent, which is metaphysical mumbo jumbo – absurd. This too, shows you have missed something very important in your proof.

You also ignore the conclusion of real distinction between essence and be and also the real limit of both, which is that several spirits are then not prime, for they are contingent and the contingent are efficiently caused by the prime (which is subsistent be), which is other than the several.

The usual assertion, somewhat more incoherently expressed than before.

If a being is limited, it then has an essence and has an existence. It is then a being with essence and existence by participation. Which means it is a thing that is of itself indifferent to exist and not the cause of its own essence. Of itself, it then has real distinction between essence and existence, which is to have real diversity between essence and existence. Such a thing is evidently not the prime in the order of essence or existence.

Then how about showing a thorough rebuttal for a change and stop giving me the assertion routine.

No. It would be a waste of my time because you wouldn't understand it, and no-one else seems interested.

Avoiding any real answer.

The prime act is the act without potency.

But Act is 'does be'. So this means
The prime does be is the does be without potency. Yes?

Yes

As potency is the cause of limit and multiplicity,

Yes, you've said that before. You didn't justify it then, and you haven't now. I see no reason to concur.

Already proven on post 323

1. A thing is in act for as much as it is actual
2. A thing is limited for as much as it is not actual
3. But not actual is either nothing or potential
4. As nothing is non be, which is not a cause and potential is can be, which is a cause, the limit of the act of a thing is potency.
5. Or, IOW a thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
6. A thing is then limited by potency as its contrary and not nothing as its contradictory
7. Or IOW if a thing were actually existing and had the act as its cause of be and the limit of its be, the more it had act, the less it would have act, but this is to have contradiction.
8. Potency is then the cause of limit and of individuation

The prime act not only has, but IS identity of essence and existence, or IOW the prime acts essence is to exist.

So now there isn't a prime mover, but a prime act? Which is it?

Prime act is the first in all orders and the prime mover is a more restricted notion to be the first in the order of movement. The prime act is then the prime mover. I used the word act to indicate its universality regarding not only movement, but also essence and existence.

In any case, it is enough to show that there may be several prime movers to refute any 'proof' that there is only one.

R- Ok You’re the expert, you tell me

• The manners of infinity in a spirit and why
• The cause of the multitude of spirits
• The manner in which form is had by spirits
• The manner in which ‘be’ is had by spirits
• The operative powers in spirits
• How potency fits into the above

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, which was a basic logical principle completely unrelated to any specific examples. You might as well have said 'Oh yeah? Well prove the Pope is a fish!' It would have been equally apposite, equally impressive, and an equally blatant attempt to avoid having to give a relevant response.

I’ve already answered your proof three times now (at least) and you did not demonstrate you could respond in a manner that demonstrates you know what you are attempting to do. You explicitly state within your apparent proof that you don’t know if a spirit is a substance. This shows a rather large void in your understanding.

But if you really want the answer, it's that spirits as you imaghine them don't exist, so don't have infinity, aren't a multitude, don't 'be', don't have form, don't have operative powers and therefore have the ultimate in 'potency'.

But congratulations in finally learning the difference between your and you're.

Good you admit you don’t know what a spirit is. This shows your proof to be in error, because not only do you not respond to my critique of your proof in any meaningful way, you now have admitted three times you don’t know what you are talking about. Lets leave it at that.

Then show me how all the above is tied into your proof of several prime movers that are spirits.

I have not posted a 'proof of several prime movers that are spirits'.

Then show me how all the above is tied into your proof of several prime movers.

Act is

1. an operation
2. form or essence, such as form or essence of water, ‘does be’ water
3. designates existence such as iron exists, or iron ‘does be’ (does exist)

1 and 2 are used in the 30 line proof.

So your proof uses the same term for two different concepts. This is enough to reject your proof, due to possible equivocation.

It doesn’t equivocate. All three can be used in the proof just fine.

And if 'does be' means 'exists', then the second meaning is actually two discrete meanings that you don't recognise are different, leading to a high probability that there is equivocation. It also leads to wondering why you use the incomprehensible term 'does be' when you could just write 'exists' and be perfectly clear.

Act is a mode of existence. Potency is another mode of existence. Act is then used to indicate mode.

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act.

This leads directly to a thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.

Now that’s better.

R- No, it's worse. Much worse.

This was my deduction:

I’ve inserted my comments into yours

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Substitute the concepts for symbols: X = 'actually existing'; Y = 'limited'; Z = 'the contrary of the act'

R- A thing X is then Y by Z
or X -> Z -> Y
R- take the contrapositive: which is the negative opposition or contradictory and not the contrary, which is positive opposition.
R- not Y -> not Z -> not X

JM - A thing not actually existing is then not limited by not the contrary of the act
R- thus not Y -> not X

JM - A thing not limited by not the contrary of the act which is the same as saying

JM - A thing not limited by the contradictory of the act

R- reinsert the concepts:
R- A thing not limited is not actually existing.

JM – Only through contradictory opposition. So far so good. But the problem is my sentence "A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act" was through contrary opposition and not contradictory opposition. I’m aware of the differences as I’ve already stated something very similar to this in the 30 line proof on post 323, where I said this

12.A thing is limited for as much as it is not actual

13.But not actual is either nothing or potential

As nothing is non be (negative), which is not a cause and potential is can be (positive), which is a cause, the limit of the act of a thing is potency.

So I’ve already shown I’m aware of the manners in which there is opposition according to positive and negative.

R- This is yours:
R- A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
R- A thing X is then Y by Z

JM – A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act

R- or X -> Z -> Y
R- You derived this: A thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.

R- That maps to
R- A thing X not Y is to be without Z

JM- A thing actually existing not limited is to be without the contrary of the act

But to be without the contrary is to have nothing as Roy understands (negative opposition) or act as I understand (positive equivalence), which then means either

A thing actually existing not limited is to be nothing. But this is absurd. This is what Roy understands

A thing actually existing not limited is to be act without limit. This is true. This is what JM understands


R- or (X and not Y) -> not Z

JM- Means actually existing and not limited is not [to have] the contrary of the act

R- Would you care to explain how to logically derive (X and not Y) -> not Z from X -> Z -> Y?*

I don't think you can do this. I don't think you can even understand this. I expect you to respond with either some meaningless waffle that might as well be 'The pope is a fish', or go into a snit and refuse to answer. Either type of response, or none at all, would be just more confirmation that you are completely clueless about basic logic, and you will not even admit it to yourself. Hence no 'proof' you ever give will have any value, since it could only ever be right by accident.

Roy

*For others: I know this can be done, and I know it wouldn't help JM in the slightest.

Definitions

1. Act = does be
2. Potency = can be
3. Nothing = non be
4. --------
5. Act is then the contrary of potency through positive to positive opposition
6. Nothing is then the contradictory of both act and potency through negative to positive opposition.
7. Nothing is then not the contrary of potency and act.
8. Act is not the contrary of act
9. Potency is not the contrary of potency.
10. --------
11. X = 'actually existing'; Y = 'limited'; Z = 'the contrary of the act'
12. X -> Z -> Y - Means
13. Actually existing and limited is to have the contrary of the act as the cause of limit
14. Which means
15. Actually existing and limited is to have the contrary of the act, which is potency
16. Which means
17. Actually existing and limited is to have act united with potency as contrary united to contrary
18. Then
19. And its contradictory opposite (negative to positive opposition) according to cause is, to have a non-cause, which is
20. Actually non existing act and non limit is not to have act united with potency as contrary united to contrary
21. Which is the same as
22. Actually non existing is not potency or act
23. Which is
24. Actually non existing is nothing which is non be (same as line 3)
25. Therefore
26. X -> Z -> Y is not the same as (X and not Y) -> not Z according to contradictory opposition of cause and non cause.
27. However
28. From line 17 again - Actually existing and limited is to have act united with potency as contrary united to contrary
29. As two positives that are contrary to each other, they are also contrary to a combination of the two
30. And
31. As potency and act are contraries
32. The compound of potency united with act is also contrary to act alone
33. And
34. Actually existing and not limited is to have act alone not united with potency as contrary
35. Then
36. Actually existing and not limited, is not to have the contrary of the act
37. Therefore as
38. (X and not Y) -> not Z means actually existing and not limited is not to have the contrary of the act
39. X -> Z -> Y is the same as (X and not Y) -> not Z according to contrary opposition of cause regarding potency and act.

JM

[Roy]

Avoiding any real answer.

Not avoiding. If you ever demonstrate that you can understand formal logic, I might answer. If not, it would be even more a waste of my time than this is.

The prime act is the act without potency.
But Act is 'does be'. So this means
The prime does be is the does be without potency. Yes?

Yes

Then your statement is nonsense. It holds as much meaning as, say, 'The wide holds is the wide holds without knowledge.' You're stringing adjectives and verbs together without including any nouns for them to be associated with. It's just ungrammatical and meaningless gobbledegook.

Already proven on post 323
[list=1][*]A thing is in act for as much as it is actual

But you've defined 'Act' = 'does be' = 'exists'. How can something be 'in exists'? It makes no sense.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, which was a basic logical principle completely unrelated to any specific examples. You might as well have said 'Oh yeah? Well prove the Pope is a fish!' It would have been equally apposite, equally impressive, and an equally blatant attempt to avoid having to give a relevant response.

I’ve already answered your proof three times now (at least) and you did not demonstrate you could respond in a manner that demonstrates you know what you are attempting to do. You explicitly state within your apparent proof that you don’t know if a spirit is a substance. This shows a rather large void in your understanding.

That's another blatant attempt to avoid having to give a relevant response. Is the Pope a fish?

Good you admit you don’t know what a spirit is. This shows your proof to be in error, because not only do you not respond to my critique of your proof in any meaningful way, you now have admitted three times you don’t know what you are talking about. Lets leave it at that.

So it's acceptable for you to not know what you're talking about, but you don't extend that privilege to others. Sheer hypocrisy. Especially since I have not actually made such an admission.

I have not posted a 'proof of several prime movers that are spirits'.

Then show me how all the above is tied into your proof of several prime movers.

JM displays the iterative power of the Bellman, and a mind like his map.

Act is

1. an operation
2. form or essence, such as form or essence of water, ‘does be’ water
3. designates existence such as iron exists, or iron ‘does be’ (does exist)

1 and 2 are used in the 30 line proof.

So your proof uses the same term for two different concepts. This is enough to reject your proof, due to possible equivocation.

It doesn’t equivocate. All three can be used in the proof just fine.

Interchangably?

Act is a mode of existence. Potency is another mode of existence. Act is then used to indicate mode.

Except that based on you definitions 'potency' is a mode of non-existence. Except that it also means something else too.

I’ve inserted my comments into yours[/font]

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Substitute the concepts for symbols: X = 'actually existing'; Y = 'limited'; Z = 'the contrary of the act'

R- A thing X is then Y by Z
or X -> Z -> Y
R- take the contrapositive: which is the negative opposition or contradictory and not the contrary, which is positive opposition.
R- not Y -> not Z -> not X

JM - A thing not actually existing is then not limited by not the contrary of the act

WRONG. You are completely clueless about basic logic. This is about as simple as you can get in formal logic, and you don't understand it.

R- thus not Y -> not X

JM - A thing not limited by not the contrary of the act which is the same as saying

JM - A thing not limited by the contradictory of the act

Wrong. You are completely clueless about basic logic.

R- reinsert the concepts:
R- A thing not limited is not actually existing.

JM – Only through contradictory opposition. So far so good. But the problem is my sentence "A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act" was through contrary opposition and not contradictory opposition.[/quote]

Irrelevant nonsense. And this:

I’m aware of the differences as I’ve already stated something very similar to this in the 30 line proof on post 323, where I said this

12.A thing is limited for as much as it is not actual

... is not "very similar".

So I’ve already shown I’m aware of the manners in which there is opposition according to positive and negative.

You've shown that you can't handle simple arguments. The rest is mere decoration.

[font=Arial]JM – A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act

R- or X -> Z -> Y
R- You derived this: A thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.

R- That maps to
R- A thing X not Y is to be without Z

JM- A thing actually existing not limited is to be without the contrary of the act

But to be without the contrary is to have nothing as Roy understands (negative opposition) or act as I understand (positive equivalence), which then means either

A thing actually existing not limited is to be nothing. But this is absurd. This is what Roy understands

No it is not.

R- Would you care to explain how to logically derive (X and not Y) -> not Z from X -> Z -> Y?*

I don't think you can do this. I don't think you can even understand this. I expect you to respond with either some meaningless waffle that might as well be 'The pope is a fish', or go into a snit and refuse to answer.

Definitions

1. Act = does be
2. Potency = can be
3. Nothing = non be
4. --------
5. Act is then the contrary of potency through positive to positive opposition
   ...
   X -> Z -> Y is the same as (X and not Y) -> not Z according to contrary opposition of cause regarding potency and act.

JM

Ok, so you chose the 'meaningless waffle' option.

Learn this: You are completely clueless about basic logic.

Roy

[johnmartin]

Not avoiding. If you ever demonstrate that you can understand formal logic, I might answer. If not, it would be even more a waste of my time than this is.

I have not studied formal logic in detail according to the symbols you have used. Yet this does not affect my arguments presented. If you think I'm not grasping your formal logic, then place your argument in syllogisms in English without the symbols.

Then your statement is nonsense. It holds as much meaning as, say, 'The wide holds is the wide holds without knowledge.' You're stringing adjectives and verbs together without including any nouns for them to be associated with. It's just ungrammatical and meaningless gobbledegook.

I'm sure you get the gist of the argument. I find it unbelievable you cannot understand simple ideas such as act and potency.

But you've defined 'Act' = 'does be' = 'exists'. How can something be 'in exists'? It makes no sense.

Act is a mode of being which has been described on another post. Potency is another mode of existence. You are making something out of nothing as usual.

That's another blatant attempt to avoid having to give a relevant response. Is the Pope a fish?

Are you for real Roy? What’s the point of this? Make it explicit and stop playing games.

So it's acceptable for you to not know what you're talking about, but you don't extend that privilege to others. Sheer hypocrisy. Especially since I have not actually made such an admission.

I do know what I'm talking about. You merely assert I dont because you have nothing else to go on. You make some silly argument about multiple prime movers that demonstrates you have little understanding of spirits, act and potency, contingent and necessary. I then asked you to provide answers regarding spirits to show us how much you really know. You effectively declined to answer these fundamental questions. You avoid answering because you don't know. This is very obvious.

JM displays the iterative power of the Bellman, and a mind like his map.

More nothing response from Roy.

Interchangably?

And again. Still no holes found in any proofs. Never will Roy. God is.

Except that based on you definitions 'potency' is a mode of non-existence. Except that it also means something else too.

More non answers based on vacuous assertions.

WRONG. You are completely clueless about basic logic. This is about as simple as you can get in formal logic, and you don't understand it.

More assertions using the poisoning of the well fallacy. Place your arguments into syllogisms, otherwise I will conclude you cannot make a real argument or you have no real objection. Currently all your arguments have been answered in full and you have no rebuttals to my answers. If I have made an error regarding the formal logic then show me, repeat the objection without using the symbols and I will answer as required. As far as I can see so far, the formal logic problem/misunderstanding has not been demonstrated to exist.

Wrong. You are completely clueless about basic logic.

R- reinsert the concepts:

R- A thing not limited is not actually existing.

JM – Only through contradictory opposition. So far so good. But the problem is my sentence "A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act" was through contrary opposition and not contradictory opposition.

See above. More nothing argumentation from you. Boooooring.

Irrelevant nonsense. And this:

... is not "very similar".

You've shown that you can't handle simple arguments. The rest is mere decoration.

No it is not.

Ok, so you chose the 'meaningless waffle' option.

Learn this: You are completely clueless about basic logic.

Roy

More assertion. I’m afraid I have already answered your so called logical objections which you have not yet addressed in any real way. How about answering the arguments presented directly. I’m thinking you see the simplicity of the arguments presented destroys your faith in atheism. Maybe, but then again if you have something of substance place it into a syllogism without formal symbolic logic so I can be sure of what you are saying.

JM

[Warcraft3]

Then your statement is nonsense. It holds as much meaning as, say, 'The wide holds is the wide holds without knowledge.' You're stringing adjectives and verbs together without including any nouns for them to be associated with. It's just ungrammatical and meaningless gobbledegook.

That is exactly what JM does.....good description...

[John Powell]

ROY:
Not avoiding. If you ever demonstrate that you can understand formal logic, I might answer. If not, it would be even more a waste of my time than this is.

JOHN MARTIN:
I have not studied formal logic in detail according to the symbols you have used. Yet this does not affect my arguments presented. If you think I'm not grasping your formal logic, then place your argument in syllogisms in English without the symbols.

POWELL:
I think you're making a fair request, John Martin. Anyone who can't translate logic into long English lacks important understanding.

ROY:
Then your statement is nonsense. It holds as much meaning as, say, 'The wide holds is the wide holds without knowledge.' You're stringing adjectives and verbs together without including any nouns for them to be associated with. It's just ungrammatical and meaningless gobbledegook.

JOHN MARTIN:
I'm sure you get the gist of the argument. I find it unbelievable you cannot understand simple ideas such as act and potency.

POWELL:
I agree with Roy and Steadele that your language is needlessly confusing.

ROY:
But you've defined 'Act' = 'does be' = 'exists'. How can something be 'in exists'? It makes no sense.

JOHN MARTIN:
Act is a mode of being which has been described on another post. Potency is another mode of existence. You are making something out of nothing as usual.

POWELL:
It's a bigger problem for us, your readers and critics, then you seem to think it is.

ROY:
That's another blatant attempt to avoid having to give a relevant response. Is the Pope a fish?

JOHN MARTIN:
Are you for real Roy? What’s the point of this? Make it explicit and stop playing games.

ROY:
So it's acceptable for you to not know what you're talking about, but you don't extend that privilege to others. Sheer hypocrisy. Especially since I have not actually made such an admission.

JOHN MARTIN:
I do know what I'm talking about. You merely assert I dont because you have nothing else to go on. You make some silly argument about multiple prime movers that demonstrates you have little understanding of spirits, act and potency, contingent and necessary. I then asked you to provide answers regarding spirits to show us how much you really know. You effectively declined to answer these fundamental questions. You avoid answering because you don't know. This is very obvious.

POWELL:
AFAICT, John Martin, you don't know either. You and yours just make it up. It's what you imagine to be the case.

ROY:
JM displays the iterative power of the Bellman, and a mind like his map.

JOHN MARTIN:
More nothing response from Roy.

ROY:
Interchangably?

JOHN MARTIN:
And again. Still no holes found in any proofs. Never will Roy. God is.

ROY:
Except that based on you definitions 'potency' is a mode of non-existence.
Except that it also means something else too.

JOHN MARTIN:
More non answers based on vacuous assertions.

ROY:
WRONG. You are completely clueless about basic logic. This is about as simple as you can get in formal logic, and you don't understand it.

JOHN MARTIN:
More assertions using the poisoning of the well fallacy. Place your arguments into syllogisms, otherwise I will conclude you cannot make a real argument or you have no real objection. Currently all your arguments have been answered in full and you have no rebuttals to my answers. If I have made an error regarding the formal logic then show me, repeat the objection without using the symbols and I will answer as required. As far as I can see so far, the formal logic problem/misunderstanding has not been demonstrated to exist.

POWELL:
Well, I think Roy is exaggerating his criticism. I consider basic logic to be things like A = A, the law of Noncontradiction, and Modus Ponens. Roy's logical manipulations are a bit more advanced than that. "2 + 3 = 5" is basic math, basic arithmetic. On the other hand, "x + 3 = 5 means x = 2" isn't basic math, but it's basic algebra, a more advanced kind of math than arithmetic.

ROY:
Wrong. You are completely clueless about basic logic.

R- reinsert the concepts:

R- A thing not limited is not actually existing.

JM – Only through contradictory opposition. So far so good. But the problem is my sentence "A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act" was through contrary opposition and not contradictory opposition.

JOHN MARTIN:
See above. More nothing argumentation from you. Boooooring.

ROY:
Irrelevant nonsense. And this:

... is not "very similar".

You've shown that you can't handle simple arguments. The rest is mere decoration.

Ok, so you chose the 'meaningless waffle' option.

Learn this: You are completely clueless about basic logic.

Roy

JOHN MARTIN:
More assertion. I’m afraid I have already answered your so called logical objections which you have not yet addressed in any real way. How about answering the arguments presented directly. I’m thinking you see the simplicity of the arguments presented destroys your faith in atheism. Maybe, but then again if you have something of substance place it into a syllogism without formal symbolic logic so I can be sure of what you are saying.

JM

POWELL:
Keep it up. I like to think we're progressing.

John Powell

[Roy]

I have not studied formal logic in detail according to the symbols you have used. Yet this does not affect my arguments presented. If you think I'm not grasping your formal logic, then place your argument in syllogisms in English without the symbols.

Premise: A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Therefore: A thing actually existing is limited by (something)
Therefore: A thing actually existing is limited
Therefore: All things that actually exist are limited
Therefore: No things that actually exist are not limited
Therefore: Things that are not limited do not actually exist.

Now it's your turn. Starting from the same premise, conclude that "A thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.".

I doubt you can do it.*

I'm sure you get the gist of the argument. I find it unbelievable you cannot understand simple ideas such as act and potency.

I understand them well enough to know that you have multiple definitions for both, and that you switch between meanings without realising you're doing it.

Example:

'Potency' is used by you to describe
(i) The state of possibly existing but not actually existing
(ii) For an existing entity, the state of not having the full possible potential in any/all of the categories, e.g. not being present in all locations, or not being present at all times.

I do know what I'm talking about. You merely assert I dont because you have nothing else to go on. You make some silly argument about multiple prime movers that demonstrates you have little understanding of spirits, act and potency, contingent and necessary. I then asked you to provide answers regarding spirits to show us how much you really know.

That is not what happened, as a check through previous posts makes clear. Your request for answers to your questions on spirits was made in response to a simple statement that "it is enough to show that there may be several prime movers to refute any 'proof' that there is only one." That is not an argument about prime movers but a rebuttal to your false claim that I must prime that several prime movers exist. It doesn't demonstrate anything either way about understanding of spirits, act, potency, contingent or necessary.

So your proof uses the same term for two different concepts. This is enough to reject your proof, due to possible equivocation.

It doesn’t equivocate. All three can be used in the proof just fine.

Interchangably?

And again [More nothing response]. Still no holes found in any proofs. Never will Roy.

That was a question, not a response, and you haven't even tried to answer it. You are a hypocrite.

In any case, I have highlighted many holes in your various 'proofs'. Post #9 in this thread, for example. That you refuse to accept that they are holes is merely continbued evidence of your cluelessness.

More assertions using the poisoning of the well fallacy.

Pointing out simple errors in your 'logic' and concluding that you cannot produce logical arguments is not the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

If I have made an error regarding the formal logic then show me, repeat the objection without using the symbols and I will answer as required.

Here's your error, shorn of X/Y/Z:

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Therefore: A thing actually existing has the contrary of the act; a thing which has the contrary of the act is limited

At this point, you said: "take the contrapositive: which is the negative opposition or contradictory and not the contrary, which is positive opposition."

The contrapositive of the above is: A thing which is not limited does not have the contrary of the act; a thing which does not have the congtrary of the act is not actually existing.

Your attempt at the contrapositive was: "A thing not actually existing is then not limited by not the contrary of the act"

That is WRONG.

I do not think you understand the concept of a contrapositive. Nor do I expect you to admit it - your ridiculous claim above that "Still no holes found in any proofs" when almost every post you make contains similar errors suggests as much. Instead, I expect something like this:

I’m afraid I have already answered your so called logical objections which you have not yet addressed in any real way.

This is why I have ceased to try to persuade you of your errors, and merely highlight them.

Roy

*I don't doubt that you think you can do it, and will produce something that you erroneously think suffices.

[Roy]

POWELL:
I think you're making a fair request, John Martin. Anyone who can't translate logic into long English lacks important understanding.

I think it's a fair request too. however, I don't think JM would understand the result. We'll see.

Nor am I the only one who thinks JM is clueless re logic: see this thread.

I also note that JM cannot translate logic into long English (or long English into logic). Draw your own conclusion.

Roy

[John Powell]

JOHN MARTIN:
Definitions
Act = does be
Potency = can be
Nothing = non be
--------
Act is then the contrary of potency through positive to positive opposition
...
X -> Z -> Y is the same as (X and not Y) -> not Z according to contrary opposition of cause regarding potency and act.
JM

ROY:
Ok, so you chose the 'meaningless waffle' option.

Learn this: You are completely clueless about basic logic.

POWELL:
It appears that John Martin's logic is wrong.

I understand "X -> Z -> Y" to mean "X implies Z implies Y." Which, I think implies "X implies Y."

The contrapositive of the conditional "X->Z" is "~Z -> ~X", the contrapositive of the conditional "Z->Y" is "~Y -> ~Z", and the contrapositive of the conditional "X->Y" is "~Y->~X." The contrapositive of the conditional is supposed to have the same truth value as the conditional.

Let's consider a realistic example.

Pat is a man implies Pat is a male human implies Pat is a human.

That seems correct. If Pat is a man then it's guaranteed that Pat is a male human and if Pat is a male human then it's guaranteed that Pat is a human.

Notice that the converses are non sequiturs. The converses are Z -> X, Y-> Z, and Y -> X. The fact that someone is male human does not imply the person is a man because the male human might be a boy. The fact that the person is a human does not imply that the person is a male human since the person might be a female human. Lastly, the fact that the person is a human does not imply the person is a man. Perhaps the person is a boy or a female human.

Notice that, likewise, the inverses are non sequiturs. The inverses are ~X -> ~Z, ~Z -> ~Y, and ~X -> ~Y. The fact that Pat is not a man does not imply that Pat is not a male human. Maybe Pat is a boy. Also, the fact that Pat is not a male human does not imply that Pat is not a human. Maybe Pat is a female human. Lastly, the fact that Pat is not a man does not imply that Pat is not a human since Pat might be a boy or a female human.

So, what are the contrapositives? If Pat is not a male human then Pat is not a man. Correct. If Pat is not a human then Pat is not a male human. Also correct. If Pat is not a human then Pat is not a man. Correct.

The logic works.

Now, John Martin claimed that "X -> Z -> Y" is the same as "(X and not Y) -> not Z." For the Pat example that would be saying that "Pat is a man and Pat is not a human implies that Pat is not a male human." The conjunction is a problem since X and ~Y would constitute a contradiction given "X -> Z -> Y".

I think John Martin is mistaken. "X -> Z -> Y" is not the same as "(X and not Y) -> not Z." Here's a truth table to confirm the difference. I assume that "X -> Z -> Y" = "X -> Z and Z -> Y." Notice that the last two columns do not have the same truth values.

.X. . .Y. . . .Z. .X -> Z. .Z -> Y. .X -> Y -> Z. . .(X and ~Y) -> ~Z
--- . --- . --- . ------ . ------ . ------------ . -------------------
.T. . .T. . .T. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.T. . .T. . .F. . . . .T. . . . .F. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.T. . .F. . .T. . . . .F. . . . .T. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .F
.T. . .F. . .F. . . . .F. . . . .T. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.F. . .T. . .T. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .F
.F. . .T. . .F. . . . .T. . . . .F. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.F. . .F. . .T. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.F. . .F. . .F. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .T

Did I do this correctly, Roy?

John Powell

[Roy]

It appears that John Martin's logic is wrong.

...

.X. . .Y. . . .Z. .X -> Z. .Z -> Y. .X -> Y -> Z. . .(X and ~Y) -> ~Z
--- . --- . --- . ------ . ------ . ------------ . -------------------
.T. . .T. . .T. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.T. . .T. . .F. . . . .T. . . . .F. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.T. . .F. . .T. . . . .F. . . . .T. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .F
.T. . .F. . .F. . . . .F. . . . .T. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.F. . .T. . .T. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .F
.F. . .T. . .F. . . . .T. . . . .F. . . . . . .F. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.F. . .F. . .T. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .T
.F. . .F. . .F. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . . . .T. . . . . . . . . . . .T

Did I do this correctly, Roy?

Mostly. There are a few minor errors in the table - it should look like this (I've
added an extra column for clarity):

..X.. ..Y.. ..Z.. .X->Z. .Z->Y. .X->Z->Y. .X+~Y. .(X+~Y)->~Z.

..T.. ..T.. ..T.. ...T... ...T... .......T....... ....F.... ........T........
..T.. ..T.. ..F.. ...F... ...T... .......F....... ....F.... ........T........
..T.. ..F.. ..T.. ...T... ...F... .......F....... ....T.... ........F........
..T.. ..F.. ..F.. ...F... ...T... .......F....... ....T.... ........T........
..F.. ..T.. ..T.. ...T... ...T... .......T....... ....F.... ........T........
..F.. ..T.. ..F.. ...T... ...T... .......T....... ....F.... ........T........
..F.. ..F.. ..T.. ...T... ...F... .......F....... ....F.... ........T........
..F.. ..F.. ..F.. ...T... ...T... .......T....... ....F.... ........T........

But yes, the relevant columns differ, and JM's 'logic' is wrong.

Roy

[johnmartin]

Quote: Originally posted by johnmartin

I have not studied formal logic in detail according to the symbols you have used. Yet this does not affect my arguments presented. If you think I'm not grasping your formal logic, then place your argument in syllogisms in English without the symbols.



Premise: A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Therefore: A thing actually existing is limited by (something)
Therefore: A thing actually existing is limited
Therefore: All things that actually exist are limited
Therefore: No things that actually exist are not limited
Therefore: Things that are not limited do not actually exist.

Now it's your turn. Starting from the same premise, conclude that "A thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.".

I doubt you can do it.*

Premise: A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act

A thing actually existing, but not limited, is then not limited by the contrary of the act

The contrary of the act is, not the act, but what can be

What can be is potency

Therefore a thing actually existing without limit is to be without potency

Therefore "A thing actually existing without limit is to be without its contrary.".

I'm sure you get the gist of the argument. I find it unbelievable you cannot understand simple ideas such as act and potency.

I understand them well enough to know that you have multiple definitions for both, and that you switch between meanings without realising you're doing it.

Example:

'Potency' is used by you to describe
(i) The state of possibly existing but not actually existing

This objective potency.

(ii) For an existing entity, the state of not having the full possible potential in any/all of the categories, e.g. not being present in all locations, or not being present at all times.

This is subjective potency. The proofs are concerned primarily with subjective potency, which is essence in act with what can be actualised. Potency is then composed with act.

I do know what I'm talking about. You merely assert I dont because you have nothing else to go on. You make some silly argument about multiple prime movers that demonstrates you have little understanding of spirits, act and potency, contingent and necessary. I then asked you to provide answers regarding spirits to show us how much you really know.

That is not what happened, as a check through previous posts makes clear. Your request for answers to your questions on spirits was made in response to a simple statement that "it is enough to show that there may be several prime movers to refute any 'proof' that there is only one." That is not an argument about prime movers but a rebuttal to your false claim that I must prime that several prime movers exist. It doesn't demonstrate anything either way about understanding of spirits, act, potency, contingent or necessary.

You included a statement about spirits in your “proof” that evidenced your ignorance of the subject at hand. You also avoid answering simple questions about spirits. You then ignore my answers to your “proof”. You would do well to acknowledge you are merely guessing in this respect. That’s ok to do this. We cannot be experts at everything. You are only human like the rest of us.

So your proof uses the same term for two different concepts. This is enough to reject your proof, due to possible equivocation.

It doesn’t equivocate. All three can be used in the proof just fine.

Interchangably?

And again [More nothing response]. Still no holes found in any proofs. Never will Roy.



That was a question, not a response, and you haven't even tried to answer it. You are a hypocrite.

In any case, I have highlighted many holes in your various 'proofs'. Post #9 in this thread, for example. That you refuse to accept that they are holes is merely continbued evidence of your cluelessness.

Ok sorry for that, my mistake. The ‘30’ line proof on post 323 The notions of potency and act as defined on post 333 can be used as follows

As potency and act complement each other in all orders of being in which they exist, the proof then uses act with its complementary potency as follows.



Act is an operation (does see) and potency is what can be an operation (can see).



Act is form or essence, such as form or essence of water, ‘does be’ water and potency is primary matter, when combined with the form of water, to limit the form of water to this particular water



We can leave out the third option as it is objective potency. The proof is primarily about the above two.

Post #9

: Originally posted by johnmartin

God is outside time and also within everything according to power. He knows through causing. He does not cause evil as it is not possible to cause an evil.
JM



Jme - What? So we have:

God knows everything
God knows through causing (coz god is outside of time and is everywhere)
God knows evil (otherwise there is a serious gap in its knowledge)
Therefore god knows evil by causing evil


But you blocks this at the therefore stage because it is not possible to cause a evil - how does that work? Does that mean that no one can or just your god?

If this is the post you are referring too, then here’s the answer.



Evil is a lack of a due good

God is the efficient cause of all good

Evil does not have an efficient cause as an efficient cause cannot of itself cause a lack

God is then not the efficient cause of evil

God is then not the cause of evil

God then knows evil both as an objective potency in his own mind whereby he knows all natures and also through the contra positive of the good efficiently caused. God then knows all things that are efficiently caused, all possibles and all non efficiently caused realities.

If I have made an error regarding the formal logic then show me, repeat the objection without using the symbols and I will answer as required.



Here's your error, shorn of X/Y/Z:

A thing actually existing is then limited by the contrary of the act
Therefore: A thing actually existing has the contrary of the act; a thing which has the contrary of the act is limited

At this point, you said: "take the contrapositive: which is the negative opposition or contradictory and not the contrary, which is positive opposition."

The contrapositive of the above is: A thing which is not limited does not have the contrary of the act; a thing which does not have the congtrary of the act is not actually existing.

Your attempt at the contrapositive was: "A thing not actually existing is then not limited by not the contrary of the act"

That is WRONG.

I do not think you understand the concept of a contrapositive. Nor do I expect you to admit it - your ridiculous claim above that "Still no holes found in any proofs" when almost every post you make contains similar errors suggests as much. Instead, I expect something like this:

I’m afraid I have already answered your so called logical objections which you have not yet addressed in any real way.



This is why I have ceased to try to persuade you of your errors, and merely highlight them.

Roy

*I don't doubt that you think you can do it, and will produce something that you erroneously think suffices.

[/QUOTE] On post 336 I was merely translating your line which stated

R- not Y -> not Z -> not X

I’ve already stated I’m not familiar with symbolic logic. You then can translate your line into English.

You’ve also avoided answering this on post 336

: Originally posted by Roy

: Originally posted by johnmartin

JM-May be also infers may not, but can be, which is potency. You need to show must be or else there is potency.

R- Sure, but it's potency of the universe, not potency of the specific entity. If multiple prime movers do exist, that potency is realised.

I note you've ignored the point that even if there is only one proime mover, there are many possibilities for the identity of that prime mover, so the prime mover has potency in this way too.

JMIf its possible or may be or can be, then it cannot be the prime, because to be the prime is to have identity of power, essence and be. For if there is real distinction between essence, be and power it has at these potencies

Real diversity between essence, be and power. But diversity is then in potency to be united by other. For a prime mover to have such diversity is then to be moved to exist and to be conserved in existence by another agent that does not have such real diversity. Such a prime mover, is then not even possibly prime, but must be only a secondary, contingent agent.

Real diversity between power and act. The power is a can act, moved by other to act. But to be moved by other is to have potency actualised by other. But to be moved by other means the other is the prime.

Both the above show a being with potency cannot possibly be the prime. Therefore several prime movers are not even possible and the very notion is absurd.

Also with your attempted proof regarding identity of spirits, you have repeatedly used the words such as may be and can be to indicate spirits possible identity within the categories. However, to use such terms shows your mindset is only according to contingent beings. For what is essential to a contingent being can properly be stated with regard to what can be. But regarding what is stated about the essence of the necessary as prime, the language of can be, may be and possible is absurd. To use such language is to reduce the necessary to the contingent, which is metaphysical mumbo jumbo – absurd. This too, shows you have missed something very important in your proof.

Please answer the above.

JM