Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Astreja]

So this is even more interesting. There is no material cause to a novel or symphony (only an efficient cause). Both are abstract objects. Yet they can be a cause of their own once read or heard. You can be compelled to act by a novel or emotionally moved by a symphony. In the same way, ideas (conveyed through language) are not material and yet can have so much causal power. So not only is it possible that the immaterial is the efficient cause on the material (us), but it happens constantly.

That is an interesting point, Steve.

A real brain-twister:  In your example, a symphony would have to be related to a material cause (for example, a composer and a stack of manuscript paper).  There might be an immaterial cause behind that, though (for example, a young musician hearing an inspiring piece and deciding to become a composer).  I can conceive of an alternating series of material/efficient causation underlying a lot of things.  What do you think?

[Ravenshire]

Trust me, you can't be holding me to a lower standard than I hold you. You're a one trick pony and your one trick is catastrophicly flawed.

Why do you insert yourself into these conversations? You are obviously not equipped for them. Does it make you feel better about your simplistic worldview? I suppose that's something. Glad I could help.

Why do you bother selling shit to people who aren't interested? You won't see me at christer sites telling them how wrong they are. Of course, I don't share your level of arrogance either.

[SteveII]

So this is even more interesting. There is no material cause to a novel or symphony (only an efficient cause). Both are abstract objects. Yet they can be a cause of their own once read or heard. You can be compelled to act by a novel or emotionally moved by a symphony. In the same way, ideas (conveyed through language) are not material and yet can have so much causal power. So not only is it possible that the immaterial is the efficient cause on the material (us), but it happens constantly.

That is an interesting point, Steve.

A real brain-twister:  In your example, a symphony would have to be related to a material cause (for example, a composer and a stack of manuscript paper).  There might be an immaterial cause behind that, though (for example, a young musician hearing an inspiring piece and deciding to become a composer).  I can conceive of an alternating series of material/efficient causation underlying a lot of things.  What do you think?

I agree, but to standardize the terminology, don't confuse material cause with something that is made of material but was really an efficient cause. The summarizing paragraph at the end of the article below brings it all together. So your point about a symphony, it would not have a material cause because the paper is not the symphony--it is used to convey the newly created abstract object: the symphony.  Just like the sound waves of someone talking are not the same as the idea that is being conveyed. 

• Matter: a change or movement's material "cause", is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.
  
  
• Form: a change or movement's formal "cause", is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave.
  
  
• Agent: a change or movement's efficient or moving "cause", consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.
  
  
• End or purpose: a change or movement's final "cause", is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.
  

The four "causes" are not mutually exclusive. For Aristotle, several answers to the question "why" have to be given to explain a phenomenon and especially the actual configuration of an object. For example, if asking why a table is such and such, a complete explanation, taking into account the four aitias, would sound like this: This table is solid and brown because it is made of wood (matter), it does not collapse because it has four legs of equal length (form), it is as such because a carpenter made it starting from a tree (agent), it has these dimensions because it is to be used by men and women (end). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

[Mister Agenda]

Fun Fact: A novel and symphony are abstract objects. They are not equivalent to the paper they are written on. If you destroy a book, you do not destroy the story. If you destroy a sheet of music, you do not destroy the symphony. It is not the paper that is compelling, it is not the sheet with notes written upon it that is moving. 

This is basic philosophy.

And if you destroy Tolstoy and his manuscript before he publishes, you destroy the story, which was only in the brain of Tolstoy and on that manuscript. If you destroy one of his books after it is published, it makes no difference because of all the other books with the same story, and all the other brains that remember it. A story (or symphony) is quite destructible if you catch it before it has a chance to propagate.

[SteveII]

Fun Fact: A novel and symphony are abstract objects. They are not equivalent to the paper they are written on. If you destroy a book, you do not destroy the story. If you destroy a sheet of music, you do not destroy the symphony. It is not the paper that is compelling, it is not the sheet with notes written upon it that is moving. 

This is basic philosophy.

And if you destroy Tolstoy and his manuscript before he publishes, you destroy the story, which was only in the brain of Tolstoy and on that manuscript. If you destroy one of his books after it is published, it makes no difference because of all the other books with the same story, and all the other brains that remember it. A story (or symphony) is quite destructible if you catch it before it has a chance to propagate.

I agree. The existence of such an abstract object is contingent upon the minds that remember it. Here's a question, if there exists a copy of a novel (in some forgotten place) that no one has seen or heard of in a 1000 years, does the abstract object exist? Or, is it merely a potential while it sits dormant before a mind resurrects it from the pages? Hmm...

[possibletarian]

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1717380' dateline='1521218026']

That's ludicrously easy a brain is the cause. Unless you can prove the brain is more than matter ?


Even if the brain is = to the imagination (which it is not), that still is not an example of a material cause. Mainly because neither the novel nor the symphony is material. Yet, they exist. 

Oh course a novel and symphony is material, A novel or symphony is created in the brain, written down, then conveyed by material means to another brain, then it is reconstructed in the brain, carried by sound to the hearer as sound waves, or read as a book.

At no point does it loose it reliance on the physical world, if you can demonstrate so, then please do.

[Amarok]

novels are physical as is the whole process in making one . No spooky magic involved .

[possibletarian]

And if you destroy Tolstoy and his manuscript before he publishes, you destroy the story, which was only in the brain of Tolstoy and on that manuscript. If you destroy one of his books after it is published, it makes no difference because of all the other books with the same story, and all the other brains that remember it. A story (or symphony) is quite destructible if you catch it before it has a chance to propagate.

I agree. The existence of such an abstract object is contingent upon the minds that remember it. Here's a question, if there exists a copy of a novel (in some forgotten place) that no one has seen or heard of in a 1000 years, does the abstract object exist? Or, is it merely a potential while it sits dormant before a mind resurrects it from the pages? Hmm...

I mean really !! of course it materially exists, you just said so.
It's matter while laying undiscovered, and it's matter once discovered. Unless like we request you can show otherwise.

[Amarok]

A buried novel still exists in the material realm

[I_am_not_mafia]

Yay! Welcome to the subject of 'time' and when you have mastered that, you will be ready for 'persistent pattern'.

I know words are hard, but you really have to try...

Which of the above concepts are hard for you to understand?

Efficient causes.