Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:21 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
#31
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
Reply
#32
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.

I think Alvin Plantinga's criticism of Aquinas' third way is worth noting and relevant to Feser's argument, taken from his book God, Freedom and Evil, pp 77-80:

Quote:This and other considerations suggest that perhaps after all Aquinas is not talking about a logically necessary being (one that exists in every world), but about one that has necessity of some other kind. It's not very clear, however, what this kind of necessity might be. And suppose we knew, furthermore, what kind of necessity he had in mind: what leads him to think that if he's proven the existence of a being that is necessary in itself (in whatever sense of necessity he has in mind) he's proved the existence of God? In sections of the Summa Theologica following the passage I quoted he tries to supply some reason for thinking that a being necessary in itself would have to be God. This attempt, however, is by no means wholly successful.

An even more impressive defect in the proof comes to light when we consider (2) and its relation to (3). In the first place

(2) Whatever can fail to exist, at some time does not exist

Why couldn't there be a contingent being that always has existed and always will exist? Is it clear that there could be no such thing? Not very. But even if we concede (2), the proof still seems to be in trouble. For

(3) If all beings are contingent, then at one time nothing existed

doesn't follow. What (2) says is really

(2) For every contingent being B, there is a time t such that B does not exist at t

From this Aquinas appears to infer (3) There is a time t at which no contingent beings exist. This is a fallacious inference it is like arguing from For every person A there is a person B such that Bis the mother of A to There is a person B such that for every person A, B is the mother of A

The first seems reasonable enough, but the second is utterly outrageous; more to the present point, it does not follow from the first. Similarly here: suppose it's true that for each thing there is a time at which it does not exist; we can't properly infer that there is some one time such that everything fails to exist at that time. Aquinas' followers and commentators have tried to mend matters by various ingenious suggestions; none of these, I believe, is successful.
Reply
#33
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: ...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.

...and after sleeping on it, it occurred to me that this statement, above, is entirely intellectually bankrupt. Empiricism is how one demonstrates the soundness of an argument's premises. If you are going to speculate about the "very nature of reality" that is fine, but without evidence to support your premises, you merely have a logical argument that is based upon empty assumptions (which is what we have with the cosmological argument (Logical? yes. Sound premises? No one knows yet because we have no known way to demonstrate their validity).

To actually be true, an argument must both be logically sound AND one must also demonstrate why anyone would accept the permises of that argument as valid statements. That demonstration, at least as far as humanity has been able to determine so far, must use empiricism to do so. We have no other tool that has proven reliable in this task.

...and also, you completely misused the word "deduction" here. I believe you mean "inference"...
Reply
#34
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 14, 2014 at 3:18 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: That demonstration, at least as far as humanity has been able to determine so far, must use empiricism to do so. We have no other tool that has proven reliable in this task.
Let's say I make this logical inference: "The things I experience represent an objective reality." According to you, I must use empiricism in order to validate this idea. The problem is that this particular inference happens to be the foundation of empiricism, and circular hilarity instantly ensues. It seems to me you must therefore either make a special plea-- that the use of empiricism should not be subject to means of validation required of any other idea-- or accept that some ideas may be accepted on the basis of logic exclusively.

If special pleas about dependency are acceptable, then the Christian quantity "X," namely that something creates all but magically avoids the requirement of being created itself, can no longer be discarded easily without hypocrisy. Therefore, it seems to me that we must establish new criteria for the validation of ideas: WHEN is empirical evidence really required, and when is a purely logical argument sufficient? But I don't think there is a non-arbitrary answer to this question; it's much more likely that camps will assemble around their philosophical assumptions of choice, and insist that said assumptions are brute facts.
Reply
#35
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 14, 2014 at 7:11 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Let's say I make this logical inference: "The things I experience represent an objective reality." According to you, I must use empiricism in order to validate this idea.

Rather, as an alternative, try something novel -- merely start from the biggest special plea that there is -- namely, that we both accept, from the start, that there is a fundamental shared reality that we both preceive and exist within. Is that a possible starting reference point that you might consider instead?

Once that big special plea is out of the way, the rest of this rather turgid and boring line of reasoning that nitpicks each constituent part of this agreed upon reality as a case of "special pleading"-- like logic, reason, empiricism, inference, the notion of time and the "true" starting point, et al. -- can just be said asside. We agree on the special pleading issue, but due to simple pragmitism, we also accept this line of argumentation doesn't really have much bearing on this discussion.

I agree this is a fascinating philosophical idea (the first time round), but I don't see how, having now been lead to acknowledging reality as just one big, giant special plea, in anyway, makes another special plea -- like a Christian quantity "x" -- worthy of consideration? After all, we aren't talking about two separate views of reality -- a case of "person A who believes reality X" vs "person B who believes in reality Y" but, rather, its the case of "person A who believes in reality X" vs "person B who believes in reality X plus something else" right? Thus, no one is realistically challenging empiricism in this discussion as a fundamental part of our shared reality.

Moreover, If there is some special Christian quantity (x) out there that is entirely immune to empiricism itself, that *quality* would place this 'quantity (X)' into the category of something entirely inconsequential to humanity. If, on the other hand, as Christians claim, such a quantity interacts with us in some way, it would have to leave behind something that would be empirically testable (making it not entirely immune).
Reply
#36
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
Wow! Talk about not getting it.
Reply
#37
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Wow! Talk about not getting it.
Rather than feigning enlightment -- would you like to perhaps demonstrate your incredibly arrogant attitude a bit?
Reply
#38
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: Rather, as an alternative, try something novel -- merely start from the biggest special plea that there is -- namely, that we both accept, from the start, that there is a fundamental shared reality that we both preceive and exist within. Is that a possible starting reference point that you might consider instead?
I accept this. However, I'm aware that many religious people do not distinguish between pragmatic assumptions about the nature of reality, and what they CONSIDER to be pragmatic assumptions about mystery-- namely, that there's some central force or being which holds the universe together in spite of all that is mysterious to us.

Quote:Once that big special plea is out of the way, the rest of this rather turgid and boring line of reasoning that nitpicks each constituent part of this agreed upon reality as a case of "special pleading"-- like logic, reason, empiricism, inference, the notion of time and the "true" starting point, et al. -- can just be said asside. We agree on the special pleading issue, but due to simple pragmitism, we also accept this line of argumentation doesn't really have much bearing on this discussion.
Okay, I think we can agree that some philosophical givens, like the existence of other minds and a shared reality, can be accepted purely on the basis of logical inference and philosophical pragmatism.

But how do we determine whether someone else's "philosophical pragmatism" should be discarded as bullshit? Or how do we prove that our assumptions are more valid than those of others? It seems to me that the soundest philosophical position should be an ambiguous one-- a multi-way Schrodinger's cat. Our experience is mental, and so the universe is mental. Our brains are material, and so the universe is material. It should be considered either, or and neither until some reliable resolution can be introduced-- and there's currently no reason to think that it can be.

With regard to cosmogony: either the universe was created or it wasn't. If it was created, it was created by (either, or, neither) mind or material. The universe may be idealistic, or ideas may just be representations of an objective reality. I argue the best position is to leave these questions unresolved until we can open the box and find out how Fuzzy is really doing.
Reply
#39
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 15, 2014 at 12:59 am)HopOnPop Wrote:
(October 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Wow! Talk about not getting it.
Rather than feigning enlightment -- would you like to perhaps demonstrate your incredibly arrogant attitude a bit?
That would take too much effort. Your post is such a confused mess that it isn't even wrong. You do not even know that deduction and inference are synonyms, both being the process whereby one uses sound reasoning to gain knowledge of what one does not know from things that are already known. We can know many things from the senses and experience of which we can be certain without submitting them to empirical testing. We know that things exist and we know that they change. From these two fundamental facts, we can deduce, or infer, certain knowledge of various types of cause, potential and actuality, etc., substantial form, etc.

Not everything of which people know can, or needs to be, tested empirically which is what I believe you are claiming. For those that are truly interested, the meat of the Feser's lecture is around 30 min.
Reply
#40
RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
(October 15, 2014 at 6:05 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(October 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: ...start from the biggest special plea that there is -- namely, that we both accept, from the start, that there is a fundamental shared reality...
I accept this.
Great. That's awesome that you get that point.
Quote:However, I'm aware that many religious people do not distinguish between pragmatic assumptions about the nature of reality, and what they CONSIDER to be pragmatic assumptions about mystery-- namely, that there's some central force or being which holds the universe together in spite of all that is mysterious to us.
And I agree, but they need to learn to make this distinction. Its simply disingenuous not to acknowledge it. Despite all their efforts to re-frame this kind of debate, in the end, they are still simply presenting a "reality + something else" view and this “+something else” rightly needs justification – if it is true – so that all of us who are stuck in “just reality” can then move forward and expand our “just reality” to include their ideas and we can be all one happy agreeable humanity. But the onus remains theirs alone to bear, right?

Quote:Okay, I think we can agree that some philosophical givens, like the existence of other minds and a shared reality, can be accepted purely on the basis of logical inference and philosophical pragmatism.
But how do we determine whether someone else's "philosophical pragmatism" should be discarded as bullshit?

That's quite a big question. It would largely depend upon each individual claim being made, wouldn't it? Each claim would have to stand or fall on its own merits.

The tools that we use to define our shared reality – empiricism, induction, deduction, logic, math, science, etc. – go a long way to addressing the bullshit issue. Philosophy and empirical science both, in fact, are not about discovering truth (its merely a side product of their processes), but rather about finding and eliminating bullshit when its encountered. Both are good tools for dissecting someone else's claims.

Quote:Or how do we prove that our assumptions are more valid than those of others?
You can't prove anything in an objective manner (in this context, I am not sure objectivity is even a valid term here...it kind of crosses over into Platonic Forms notion of sorts). You can merely demonstrate with some rigor and satisfaction whether some new idea conforms to your existing assumptions – the same assumptions that you, and the vast majority of your chosen community of support, made in defining this shared reality itself. As we both have already acknowledged, we cannot really ever be sure about any assumptions we make, no matter how dependent we are on them. Thus its probably best to limit one's acceptance of assumptions to the most minimal compliment possible, say, merely those you have implicitly been relying upon since birth.

As you might already be thinking, this is not an assured method to establishing a “more valid” vs “less valid” set of assumptions, and I agree. It is merely the only methodology that I believe humans really have at their disposal.

Quote:It seems to me that the soundest philosophical position should be an ambiguous one-- a multi-way Schrodinger's cat. Our experience is mental, and so the universe is mental. Our brains are material, and so the universe is material. It should be considered either, or and neither until some reliable resolution can be introduced-- and there's currently no reason to think that it can be.
I agree, if there is absolutely no way of peeking in the box without collapsing the wave function, so to speak (i.e. get any form of evidence that leads you to think one cat-state is more likely over another cat-state). And, that is generally what I would say the modern skeptic-minded atheist/agnostic position is today (I don't really make a distinction between the two terms myself – the world, to me, divides into either “theists” or “everyone else”).
Quote:With regard to cosmogony: either the universe was created or it wasn't. If it was created, it was created by (either, or, neither) mind or material. The universe may be idealistic, or ideas may just be representations of an objective reality. I argue the best position is to leave these questions unresolved until we can open the box and find out how Fuzzy is really doing.
I agree, and that is how science-minded people tend to leave it too. In my experience, its merely the theological arguments that leap to conclusions ahead of their time.

(October 15, 2014 at 8:37 am)ChadWooters Wrote:
(October 15, 2014 at 12:59 am)HopOnPop Wrote: Rather than feigning enlightment -- would you like to perhaps demonstrate your incredibly arrogant attitude a bit?
That would take too much effort. Your post is such a confused mess that it isn't even wrong. You do not even know that deduction and inference are synonyms, both being the process whereby one uses sound reasoning to gain knowledge of what one does not know from things that are already known. We can know many things from the senses and experience of which we can be certain without submitting them to empirical testing. We know that things exist and we know that they change. From these two fundamental facts, we can deduce, or infer, certain knowledge of various types of cause, potential and actuality, etc., substantial form, etc.

Not everything of which people know can, or needs to be, tested empirically which is what I believe you are claiming. For those that are truly interested, the meat of the Feser's lecture is around 30 min.

If you don't have the time, I can respect that...but wow! I suppose its nice that you feel comfortable in all that, more power to you. Sorry that we can't actually come to a semantic understanding about basic terms. I agree such a barrier does tend to make the other appear as "not even wrong." But such is life. It was a nice attempt at communication anyway.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving the Existence of a First Cause Muhammad Rizvi 3 758 June 23, 2023 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  The existence of God smithd 314 18937 November 23, 2022 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Veridican Argument for the Existence of God The Veridican 14 1593 January 16, 2022 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: brewer
  [Serious] Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion. spirit-salamander 75 6493 May 3, 2021 at 12:18 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  A 'proof' of God's existence - free will mrj 54 6087 August 9, 2020 at 10:25 am
Last Post: Sal
  Best arguments for or against God's existence mcc1789 22 2707 May 22, 2019 at 9:16 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice Edwardo Piet 53 7866 June 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God Edwardo Piet 58 13604 May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Berkeley's argument for the existence of God FlatAssembler 130 12967 April 1, 2018 at 12:51 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency datc 386 41162 December 1, 2017 at 2:07 pm
Last Post: Whateverist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)