dagblog - Comments for "D'NESH VS. HITCHENS"

Ayup, or this horrifying case

Janicket — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 00:04:18 +0000

In reply to Or just read this news

Ayup, or this horrifying case currently being dealt with in Massachusetts:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/07/20/hundreds-of-animals-rescued-from-d...

Not only horrible care; town officials appear to have been turning a blind eye to it all for years.

http://turnto10.com/news/local/westport-residents-angry-about-animal-cru...

Or just read this news

ocean-kat — Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:54:10 +0000

In reply to Slaves were taken care of

Or just read this news article from about a week ago.

Police have charged a Pennsylvania man with animal cruelty after he allegedly beat a horse after the animal collapsed Tuesday while pulling a heavy load on a rural road in Lancaster County.

Marvin M. Sensenig, 20, of Ephrata, Pa., was arrested Friday and faces two counts of cruelty to animals, Ephrata police announced in a statement.

“It is alleged that the defendant unreasonably struck a horse that was overburdened with a heavy load,” the statement says. “The horse expired shortly thereafter.”

Slaves were taken care of

Janicket — Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:31:30 +0000

In reply to D'NESH VS. HITCHENS

Slaves were taken care of well because they were commodities and people therefore took as good care of them as any other livestock?

Bwa-hahahahahahahahahahaha (sob)

The fool should go read Sewell's "Black Beauty" (hint: it ain't about two-legged slaves) to get an idea of what "caring for livestock" meant to our ancestors. Or ask himself just where the expression "beating a dead horse" comes from. Or read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". Or study factory farming livestock practices even in this supposedly more enlightened day. Or....

Oh, right, like reality would ever matter to the fool.

Thank you for the award. I

moat — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 01:36:38 +0000

In reply to Moat, this is delightful!

Thank you for the award. I wish my effort had been more grammatically correct. Spinoza did the actual work.

In one way, Spinoza is arguing against your idea that we "cannot grasp the infinite." Unlike Anselm, he looks at our recognition of the infinite and the unconditioned as natural and inevitable as things we think about in terms of being finite and conditioned. He uses infinity as comfortably as Aristotle did in talking about processes and limits.

So his insistence regarding separating the two in thinking about the universe is more like the following:
We have these two perfectly conceivable ideas but we haven't figured out what they have to do with each other. On the other hand, whatever is going on has a high probability of involving the nature of this very unknown relationship.

Moat, this is delightful!

Richard Day — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:16:04 +0000

In reply to There is at least one Deist

Moat, this is delightful!

But I must render unto Moat the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of Moat from all of me for this line:

So the argument over the "Cosmological" as demonstrating the necessity for a beginning violates this proposition regardless which side is taken.
The proposition also makes the "Teleological" proofs absurd because it using des Cartre to move des Horse

The cart before the horse. hahahahah

Everything is finite?

You know Hitchens talks about the fact that we do not know anything about things that happened before.

Hell, my first memory seems to be a scene that occurred when I was about 30 months.

Everything is finite with regard to our experience as humans.

There must be a beginning and an end.

I do know this for a fact.

THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT GRASP AN IDEA OF THE INFINITE.

The Neurons in our brains do not work thusly. hahahahah

Thank you Moat for this. I just came back from some hours with my grand kids.

But I had to read this essay four times before I could respond.

I think I need another four reads.

WELL DONE.

There is at least one Deist

moat — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:07:00 +0000

In reply to D'NESH VS. HITCHENS

There is at least one Deist who considered the two sides being argued as a failure to appreciate the theological per se.

Spinoza's proposition 28 in his Ethics:

E1: PROP. 28.--Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity.

Proof.--Whatsoever is conditioned to exist and act, has been thus conditioned by God (by E1P26 and E1P24C) But that which is finite, and has a conditioned existence, cannot be produced by the absolute nature of any attribute of God; for whatsoever follows from the absolute nature of any attribute of God is infinite and eternal (by E1P21). It must, therefore, follow from some attribute of God, in so far as the said attribute is considered as in some way modified; for substance and modes make up the sum total of existence (by E1A1 and E1D3, E1D5), while modes [E1P25C] are merely modifications of the attributes of God. But from God, or from any of his attributes, in so far as the latter is modified by a modification infinite and eternal, a conditioned thing cannot follow [E1P22]. Wherefore it must follow from, or be conditioned for, existence and action by God or one of his attributes, in so far as the latter are modified by some modification which is finite, and has a conditioned existence. This is our first point.

Again, this cause or this modification (for the reason by which we established the first part of this proof) must in its turn be conditioned by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and, again, this last by another (for the same reason); and so on (for the same reason) to infinity. Q.E.D.

moat interjects:

E1: PROP. 28, Note. --As certain things must be produced immediately by God, namely those things which necessarily follow from his absolute nature, through the means of these primary attributes [certain things], which, nevertheless, can neither exist nor be conceived without God, it follows:--

1. That God is absolutely the proximate cause of those things immediately produced by him. I say absolutely, not after his kind, as is usually stated. For the effects of God cannot either exist or be conceived without a cause (E1P15 and E1P24C).

2. That God cannot properly be styled the remote cause of individual things, except for the sake of distinguishing these from what he immediately produces, or rather from what follows from his absolute nature. For, by a remote cause, we understand a cause which is in no way conjoined to the effect. But all things which are, are in God, and so depend on God, that without him they can neither be nor be conceived.

moat interjects:

The argument is parallel to St Anselm's reasoning but is also a direct challenge to the Saint's "greater than can be conceived" perspective. If you start with accepting God is Substance, then you are literally not in a position to make that comparison.

Oh Jesus, somebody read this.

Richard Day — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 04:33:40 +0000

In reply to Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted

Oh Jesus, somebody read this. hahahahah

You know Mr. Smith, weasel is the best epithet I have ever read that best describes this prick. hahahahah

Thank you as always. hahahaha

Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted

MrSmith1 — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 04:10:50 +0000

In reply to D'NESH VS. HITCHENS

Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon. (Whenever I see an article about him, I like to add that fact to the comments section just to make sure everyone knows. It's one of my missions in Life. hahahahahaha ...)

Dinesh is a strange little weasel. Smug in his disdain for Liberals, he's also as dumb as a bag full of rocks