http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html
First of all a thanks to Vlad for posting this. Until his support of Feser, he has entirely passed me by as a thinker.
Secondly, it's quite a lot of writing to reply to on a forum so not sure that a line by line is Fesible (sic).
Thirdly as, a general point, the whole reply seems to essentially assume that earlier points are proved and therefore can be assumed. It's an indulgent, if understandable approach, which militates against any intervention. We have effectively walked in the middle of a conversation where Feser tells us that the previous bits he stated where just like awesomely true and shit, and also take Feser's description of Carroll, who is replying to Lane Craig, as if it is a reply to Feser, which strikes me as a dishonest tactic.
If any of those on the board, want to debate Feser's ideas then that would make sense to me. I might even be tempted to use the Formal Debate Board on a suitably defined topic relating to them.
