Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God

[HopOnPop]

First, the validity of the cosmological argument does not depend on any particular empirical, i.e. evidence -based, physical theory (Newtonian or otherwise) because any rational deduction about the very nature of reality is a more fundamental claim.

Second, refuting the analogy does not invalidate Feser's main point. The analogy he uses conveys the idea of contingency. The idea of the cosmological argument is that the existence of whatever is contingent and subject to change is causally dependent on something else whose existence is neither contingent nor subject to change, a first cause.

And your criticism here is pointless. I never tried to use Newton to refute the cosmological arguement, merely to refute what you seem to call this man's analogy. Secondly, and more important, what the speaker presented was not an analogy, but and actual example of how he views his principle in action in reality. To that, my criticism -- that this guy has a poor understanding of basic Newtonian physics -- does rightly criticize his general view. There is no heirarchy where he "sees" one. As a closed, self-contained system, the universe (or multi-verse or however you want to include all things natural) has no need for external inputs (beyond perhaps the first input), as this presenter is trying to justify to be the case. Rather, it functions just fine as a fully closed system, and everything inside the universe is all it needs to enact the changes/supports/etc, and it doesn't accomplish such things through a series of heirarchical dependencies. It does so through mutual balanced dependencies (i.e. each action has an equal and opposite reaction). I agree there is no answer to the cosmological argument -- if this all needed the "first push" to get it running, I make no claim one way or the other (other than IF there is a need for a first cause THEN that first cause is *not likely* to be a thinking intentioned agent of some kind). But, in both these arguments (traditional linear series cosmological and this new fangled heirarchical series cosmological), once the thing starts running, or "supporting" to use his language, there is no need for any further interaction from outside the system. It is self-sustaining after the first push without any need for any first members, causes, etc. interacting with it. To say there is an ultimate need for a first member, or supporter at all times (as, again, this guy is trying to argue for), you are essentially saying, if someone fills up a bag with stuff, the filler of the bag must continue to hold the bag for it to contain that stuff. This is demonstably false (and an ACTUAL analogy that illustrates the principle presented) since the bag can simply be sealed and forgotten.