RE: God exists subjectively?
November 12, 2016 at 6:46 pm
(This post was last modified: November 12, 2016 at 7:01 pm by Angrboda.)
(November 12, 2016 at 11:20 am)theologian Wrote:(November 12, 2016 at 2:05 am)Tonus Wrote: If you accept his Five Ways, then special pleading is required. The moment you decide that a universal rule that applies to everything does not apply to one thing in particular, then the rule is no longer universal. As soon as you decide that there has to be an "unmoved mover" you have invalidated the premise that everything that moves was acted upon by something else, because you introduced an exception. At that point I can simply decide that the unmoved mover is something else and discard God with the same amount of effort that was required to introduce him.
Okay, your point is that Five Ways are really special pleading. For, every conclusion that contradicts the premise is a special pleading. But, according to you, the first way which has a premise that everything that moves must be acted by something else, while the conclusion states that there must be an Unmoved Mover and thus it contradicts the premise. Therefore, your point that the First Way in the Five Ways are just special pleading.
However, one of the premise of your point is false. For, in the First Way, the conclusion states that there is an Unmoved Mover and not Unmoved Moved, and that one of the premise states that everything that moves (or in motion to be precise) must be acted upon by another and not that every mover must be acted upon. In that case, there is no contradiction between the premise and the conclusion. So, your first reason why the First Way of the Five Ways is a special pleading, i.e. the conclusion contradicts with the premise, is found to be not the case.
You wiggle and dance but your faux semantic argument can't escape the objection.
"Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of change, and more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality." ~ Wikipedia
So is God not changing from potentiality to actuality? If he is, then he requires a prior existent. If he isn't, then you have special pleading. Both ways fail.