RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
October 12, 2014 at 3:14 am
(This post was last modified: October 12, 2014 at 3:25 am by HopOnPop.)
Okay, I actually muddled through this guy's STAGE 1 (of 3) in detail and digested it a bit, which is I believe all you were asking for? Skipping a lengthy reiteration of the set up given, I will jump right into my criticism of his proposed “Hierarchy Series” concept.
The failure I saw was based upon this guys really poor understanding of basic Newtonian physics. He kept ascribing “support” only in one direction – the cup depends upon “support” from a table, which in turn is “supported” by a floor....and in the end its ALL “supported” by the Earth (because he wants a ubiquitous source for "support" to call his “first member” – the equivalent of Aristotle's Prime Mover, or Aquinas' First Cause, or just... something to call God). But, in physics 101, this is not how anyone would describe this little scene of his, if it were to represent a real Newtonian model. He failed to acknowledge, for instance, that each physical object would have its own gravitational force (its own innate power) that, no matter how small it may be by comparision to the Earth, would still exerts gravitational pull, and thus "support" all the others objects too, no matter how large, in reference to its own gravity. Thus one can alternatively describe this example by saying the cup also is a prime member, because it “supports” the table, and through the table, the cup also “supports” the floor, and in turn, also “supports” the Earth too – just in terms of its own tiny gravitational force. A similar narrative exists for all the other members in this scenario. So, in the end, there simply is no real “first member” in this kind of scenario but rather a complex web of mutual support. Everything would be a first member to some extent, proportional to their relative sizes.
At some point in the argument, in his attempt to explain the omni-importance of the Earth to this example, he makes the mistake of saying that if one remove the Earth, the ultimate “support” it provides will vanish, causing everything remaining to come crashing down. He, of course, fails to realize that to remove the Earth is to also remove Earth's gravitational influences too, so rather than the rest of the scenario crashing down without the Earth there, everything pretty much would remain in the same position just as it was when the Earth was present (thus ruining the analogy of Earth, as the first member, to God). Moreover, once you remove the “opressively” overwhelming presence of the Earth's domineering gravity (i.e. reality without God) what you are essentially left with is another kind of scenario that functions just as well, but differently, and without any need of the Earth at all. In fact, there would be no real heirarchy in this Earthless model, merely an interdependent system of mutual support between objects. In such an alternative example, his explanation of what is occuring simply stops making sense. With bodies of more equal size and gravity, the whole notion of some "hierarchy" of "support" fades away completely, leaving only a true scenario that is better described as shared mutual cooperation with no need for a over-dominant, dictatorial gravitaitonal presence.
That's my two-cents on the matter, at least. Hope that helps.
Aristotelian proofs are merely a Philopher's of Religion homage to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- “Evidence? To god-damned hell with evidence! We have no evidence. In fact, we don't need evidence. I don't have to show you any stinking evidence, you god-damned cabrón”
The failure I saw was based upon this guys really poor understanding of basic Newtonian physics. He kept ascribing “support” only in one direction – the cup depends upon “support” from a table, which in turn is “supported” by a floor....and in the end its ALL “supported” by the Earth (because he wants a ubiquitous source for "support" to call his “first member” – the equivalent of Aristotle's Prime Mover, or Aquinas' First Cause, or just... something to call God). But, in physics 101, this is not how anyone would describe this little scene of his, if it were to represent a real Newtonian model. He failed to acknowledge, for instance, that each physical object would have its own gravitational force (its own innate power) that, no matter how small it may be by comparision to the Earth, would still exerts gravitational pull, and thus "support" all the others objects too, no matter how large, in reference to its own gravity. Thus one can alternatively describe this example by saying the cup also is a prime member, because it “supports” the table, and through the table, the cup also “supports” the floor, and in turn, also “supports” the Earth too – just in terms of its own tiny gravitational force. A similar narrative exists for all the other members in this scenario. So, in the end, there simply is no real “first member” in this kind of scenario but rather a complex web of mutual support. Everything would be a first member to some extent, proportional to their relative sizes.
At some point in the argument, in his attempt to explain the omni-importance of the Earth to this example, he makes the mistake of saying that if one remove the Earth, the ultimate “support” it provides will vanish, causing everything remaining to come crashing down. He, of course, fails to realize that to remove the Earth is to also remove Earth's gravitational influences too, so rather than the rest of the scenario crashing down without the Earth there, everything pretty much would remain in the same position just as it was when the Earth was present (thus ruining the analogy of Earth, as the first member, to God). Moreover, once you remove the “opressively” overwhelming presence of the Earth's domineering gravity (i.e. reality without God) what you are essentially left with is another kind of scenario that functions just as well, but differently, and without any need of the Earth at all. In fact, there would be no real heirarchy in this Earthless model, merely an interdependent system of mutual support between objects. In such an alternative example, his explanation of what is occuring simply stops making sense. With bodies of more equal size and gravity, the whole notion of some "hierarchy" of "support" fades away completely, leaving only a true scenario that is better described as shared mutual cooperation with no need for a over-dominant, dictatorial gravitaitonal presence.
That's my two-cents on the matter, at least. Hope that helps.
Aristotelian proofs are merely a Philopher's of Religion homage to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- “Evidence? To god-damned hell with evidence! We have no evidence. In fact, we don't need evidence. I don't have to show you any stinking evidence, you god-damned cabrón”
