Home
Search
Login
Register81
Chit-chat / Re: 'Belief' field on profiles
« Last post by Mackie Messer on July 04, 2020, 10:28:28 pm »Out of curiosity, what is your first language?
Recent Posts
82
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas
« Last post by Mackie Messer on July 04, 2020, 10:27:54 pm »Have you considered rebranding as a scholastic, or scholastic and patristic forum? I've long disliked the rather bland theme of "classical theism".
83
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas
« Last post by MightyFool on July 02, 2020, 03:38:02 pm »I don't think you can negotiate. They don't even have an email option and I'm not comfortable calling them since they're in another country.
I'll add it to the list.
I'll add it to the list.
84
Chit-chat / Re: 'Believe' field on profiles
« Last post by MightyFool on July 02, 2020, 02:29:18 pm »Belief, not believe, right?
Ouch. Thanks, changed it. That's what I get for having English at my second language
85
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas
« Last post by Mackie Messer on July 02, 2020, 02:24:31 pm »I think Ouros meant contact the squatter. (Honestly, I'm not sure the domain name is even worth $30. classicaltheismforum.org would likely serve just as well.)
86
Chit-chat / Re: 'Believe' field on profiles
« Last post by Mackie Messer on July 02, 2020, 02:24:00 pm »Belief, not believe, right?
87
Chit-chat / 'Belief' field on profiles
« Last post by MightyFool on July 02, 2020, 10:35:28 am »This forum software allows for custom fields to be visible on profiles and in the sidebar of posters.
I was thinking of adding a 'belief' field. This allows to see users from what 'point of belief' other users are arguing.
Not sure if 'belief' is the correct term to use here. If you know something better, let me know.
You would then be able to select a 'belief' from a list. It will then be displayed on your profile and sidebar.
I was thinking of the following options:
Curious what you guys think of this idea.
I was thinking of adding a 'belief' field. This allows to see users from what 'point of belief' other users are arguing.
Not sure if 'belief' is the correct term to use here. If you know something better, let me know.
You would then be able to select a 'belief' from a list. It will then be displayed on your profile and sidebar.
I was thinking of the following options:
- Roman Catholic
- Orthodox
- Protestant
- Muslim
- Jewish
- Hindu
- Buddhist
- Theist
- Agnostic
- Atheist
- Other
Curious what you guys think of this idea.
88
Philosophy / Feser's Aristotelian Proof fails in demonstrating the existence of Pure Act
« Last post by Valtteri on July 02, 2020, 07:38:38 am »I have been scouring the internet for quite some time now searching for an answer to this objection. Looking at the archives of the old CT Forum the objection was brought up there as well, especially by RomanJoe, but never was a satisfactory answer given. The objection is this: from the premises of Feser's Aristotelian Proof (potentialities are actualized, an essentially ordered causal series must have a first member, a potency can be reduced to act only by something that is in act) we cannot deduce the existence of something that is purely actual, only the existence of an unactualized actualizer which exists in an underived way (nothing actualizes its existence).
Whenever this objection is brought up, the answer is usually that if this unactualized actualizer were to have any potencies, it would be a composite, and a composite cannot exist in an underived way, so the unactualized actualizer has to be purely actual. Sometimes the answer given is that if the unactualized actualizer had a distinction between its essence and its existence, it would not exist in an underived way, so its essence and its existence have to be identical, and such a thing has to be purely actual. I would certainly agree with both of these assertions. However, the point is that from the given premises of Feser's Aristotelian Proof, we cannot arrive at that which is Pure Act. Thus the argument fails as a standalone argument for demonstrating the existence of God; to arrive at God, we have to appeal to further premises, premises that are not part of the actual argument.
Am I mistaken? Can we actually arrive at the existence of Pure Act from the three premises of the argument?
Whenever this objection is brought up, the answer is usually that if this unactualized actualizer were to have any potencies, it would be a composite, and a composite cannot exist in an underived way, so the unactualized actualizer has to be purely actual. Sometimes the answer given is that if the unactualized actualizer had a distinction between its essence and its existence, it would not exist in an underived way, so its essence and its existence have to be identical, and such a thing has to be purely actual. I would certainly agree with both of these assertions. However, the point is that from the given premises of Feser's Aristotelian Proof, we cannot arrive at that which is Pure Act. Thus the argument fails as a standalone argument for demonstrating the existence of God; to arrive at God, we have to appeal to further premises, premises that are not part of the actual argument.
Am I mistaken? Can we actually arrive at the existence of Pure Act from the three premises of the argument?
89
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas
« Last post by MightyFool on July 02, 2020, 05:47:05 am »It's not Brian who sells the domain, it's a separate company.
What happens is when a popular domain name expires, is that it's up for grabs for anyone. Domain-squat companies scan popular expired domains to buy them and then resell them for a higher price. Unfortunately, that's a legal practice and can only be disputed if your copyright gets infringed (for example the mcdonalds.com domain name expires and gets bought, they can dispute that because mcDonalds is a registered brand name).
If you go to http://www.classicaltheismforum.com/ and then click on 'Buy this domain' at the top, you can see the price they request.
What happens is when a popular domain name expires, is that it's up for grabs for anyone. Domain-squat companies scan popular expired domains to buy them and then resell them for a higher price. Unfortunately, that's a legal practice and can only be disputed if your copyright gets infringed (for example the mcdonalds.com domain name expires and gets bought, they can dispute that because mcDonalds is a registered brand name).
If you go to http://www.classicaltheismforum.com/ and then click on 'Buy this domain' at the top, you can see the price they request.
90
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas
« Last post by Ouros on July 02, 2020, 05:38:38 am »Can't you try to negociate? Just tell him that you'll only take it at 30$, and that he should be happy that anyone want to buy it.