The Illusion of Self

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

We had this conversation on the Karma site. Either your memory is going or you find what I say unimportant.

The latter.

Again though, if you think he has something worthwhile to say then tell us what it is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No they don't - there are several more different possibilities, so the dichotomy is a false one.

See above. To be a true dichotomy only the two options he sets out would be available.

Either Christianity is true or it isn't. How is that the false dichotomy you've been arguing for for your last two or three posts?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

lad,

The latter.

Well then...I think we're done then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Either Christianity is true or it isn't. How is that the false dichotomy you've been arguing for for your last two or three posts?

That's not the opposition he sets up though. His claim is that it's either the greatest truth ever told, or it's a fraud. Maybe though it's true but only in parts, or maybe it's all true but there's a greater truth out there somewhere, or maybe the bits that aren't true are there for reasons other than fraud, or maybe.... etc.

That's why he's attempting a false dichotomy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well then...I think we're done then.

That's one option. Another though would be that you attempt to write something coherent and cogent such that you at least give yourself the possibility of posting something "important".

[Shaker]

We had this conversation on the Karma site. Either your memory is going or you find what I say unimportant.

I'll have £50 on (b).

[SusanDoris]

Either Christianity is true or it isn't. How is that the false dichotomy you've been arguing for for your last two or three posts?

Which two definitions or which two versions of Christianity would you select for  a true dichotomy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which two definitions or which two versions of Christianity would you select for  a true dichotomy?what it boils down to.

His version is that which makes the claim on a person. He lays that out quite clearly in the essay.

Lewis lays out what he means by Christianity and the alternative is that is a big lie passing something untrue of as true. In other words he is saying it is either true or it isn't. That's what it boils down to. If it isn't true then the statement that people need Christ IS,as Lewis states a fraud and , which Wigginhall failed to mention and Hillside bought the Wigginhall omission, a big sell. If not true it is nothing other,as Lewis states, than a fraud made and a sell bought.

The essay is all about the person who asks do they need Jesus.
Any pedantry avoiding a judgment on that and one comes under the terms of the essay.
It is the very call to commitment for or against which wrankles...since people forgive supposed false dichotomies and other supposed fallacies all the time.

Have you read it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Lewis lays out what he means by Christianity and the alternative is that is a big lie passing something untrue of as true.

Or partial recollections and some guessing to fill in the gaps, or embellishment by later authors, or genuine mistakes, or misreporting of decades-old stories, or…

In other words he is saying it is either true or it isn't.

No he isn’t. He’s saying that it’s either the greatest truth ever or it’s a lie. These are very particular – and very precise – options, but they’re by no means the only ones. That's why it's a false dichotomy.
 

That's what it boils down to.

To you maybe, but not to Lewis.

If it isn't true then the statement that people need Christ IS,as Lewis states a fraud and , which Wigginhall failed to mention and Hillside bought the Wigginhall omission, a big sell. If not true it is nothing other,as Lewis states, than a fraud made and a sell bought.

Nope. Some people may still “need” their beliefs in a divine man/god regardless of whether there ever was such a being. This is just a repetition of your old mistake of thinking that desiring something has anything to say to whether or not it’s true. 

The essay is all about the person who asks do they need Jesus.

“Jesus”, or belief in Jesus?

Any pedantry avoiding a judgment on that and one comes under the terms of the essay.

It is the very call to commitment for or against which wrankles...since people forgive supposed false dichotomies and other supposed fallacies all the time.

Did that car crash of a sentence means something in your head when you wrote it?
 

Have you read it?

As his premises are so palpably false there seemed little point in finding out what he decided to build on them.

[torridon]

Start with your own power/potential/change/ability. You will see that it is dependent/derived from something else. and the power/potential/change/ability of that something  is dependent or derived and so on but what you can't have logically is an infinite chain of derived power/potential/change/ability.

OK, I see, but doesn't that just boil down to the argument that SOTS likes to make - essentially, I appear to have power, that power must have come from somewhere, it cannot have come from nothing, therefore it must derive from some powerful being working in isolation.  I cannot see the how that follows.  It just looks like a cheap ploy to avoid something from nothing because we are supposed to be satisfied with that as an answer without asking where that superbeing got its powers from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK, I see, but doesn't that just boil down to the argument that SOTS likes to make - essentially, I appear to have power, that power must have come from somewhere, it cannot have come from nothing, therefore it must derive from some powerful being working in isolation.  I cannot see the how that follows.  It just looks like a ploy to avoid something from nothing because we are supposed to be satisfied with that as an answer without asking where that superbeing got its powers from.

I feel you are turning a bottom up into a top down also you've deliberately removed the bottom up observation that the power is derived by removing the er, derived bit.
Basically The power/etc observed at anyone time is derived and infinitely derived power is not a logical proposition.

You are turning a cosmological argument which doesn't depend on the temporally finite and works as well for eternal matter into a Kalam cosmological argument.

[torridon]

eerm, translation anybody ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.  It just looks like a cheap ploy to avoid something from nothing because we are supposed to be satisfied with that as an answer without asking where that superbeing got its powers from.

It wouldn't be a superbeing since it would only have derived power like the rest of us and an infinite chain of derived power is not logical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

eerm, translation anybody ?

I mean you have forgotten to mention that power is derived so that you can turn this into an argument about the Kalam Cosmological argument.

I'm not saying I have derived power ergo superbeing.

I am saying I have derived power from a derived power from a derived power at anyone moment. An infinite chain of derivation is illogical.

[Shaker]

I am saying I have derived power [...]

Cool but GCSE English would do, Vlad.

[Gordon]

I mean you have forgotten to mention that power is derived so that you can turn this into an argument about the Kalam Cosmological argument.

I haven't seen anybody suggesting we do that.

I'm not saying I have derived power ergo superbeing.

Super - one less thing for you to worry about then.

I am saying I have derived power from a derived power from a derived power at anyone moment. An infinite chain of derivation is illogical.

So you say - the question is though what on earth do you mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't seen anybody suggesting we do that.

Super - one less thing for you to worry about then.

So you say - the question is though what on earth do you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

[Gordon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

I don't have an hour to spare so perhaps you can paraphrase his approach, since you are citing him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

How the hell does this guy have a PhD? No wonder the comments section has been disabled - he'd be eviscerated by anyone possessed of a functioning intellect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have an hour to spare so perhaps you can paraphrase his approach, since you are citing him.

Yes....Baywatch it ain't.

Basically at any one moment your potential to do, to change, to be....... depends on something else and that things potential to do, to change, to be depends on something else etc etc. This dependent is referred to as ''derived''. But you cannot logically or reasonably have an infinite chain of derived power ergo there must be an actual power which is not derived. Which changes and is not changed itself since that would mean it is a derived power and an infinite chain of derived power is not logical.

[torridon]

Yes....Baywatch it ain't.

Basically at any one moment your potential to do, to change, to be....... depends on something else and that things potential to do, to change, to be depends on something else etc etc. This dependent is referred to as ''derived''. But you cannot logically or reasonably have an infinite chain of derived power ergo there must be an actual power which is not derived. Which changes and is not changed itself since that would mean it is a derived power and an infinite chain of derived power is not logical.

My potential to do anything at all depends upon energy;  energy is there and it is eternal according to physics.  Energy ultimately is not derived, so why an infinite chain of dependencies ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My potential to do anything at all depends upon energy;  energy is there and it is eternal according to physics.  Energy ultimately is not derived, so why an infinite chain of dependencies ?

Energy changes though and cannot be the candidate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes....Baywatch it ain't.

Basically at any one moment your potential to do, to change, to be....... depends on something else and that things potential to do, to change, to be depends on something else etc etc. This dependent is referred to as ''derived''. But you cannot logically or reasonably have an infinite chain of derived power ergo there must be an actual power which is not derived. Which changes and is not changed itself since that would mean it is a derived power and an infinite chain of derived power is not logical.

So Aristotle built his argument on his ignorance of physics - which is excusable. Feser repeats the mistake - which isn't given that he has access to physics.

What's your excuse?

[torridon]

Energy changes though and cannot be the candidate.

Energy changes form, but it persists, it transcends all change, it is eternal.  So what is the problem with a chain of dependencies terminating at energy ? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My potential to do anything at all depends upon energy;  energy is there and it is eternal according to physics.  Energy ultimately is not derived, so why an infinite chain of dependencies ?

Changes in energy show that it too has derived potential or power.
Also No infinite chain is being proposed. This is a hierarchical chain. There is no infinite chain since there cannot be one for derived power.

Energy can be eternal or not. but it is observed to change and so it has derived power...From an actual power.

Therefore say some dumbass suggested that physics was being transgressed. They would be wrong since the philosophy works with an infinite or finite universe.